ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Security Situation

Graham Evans: What recent assessment he has made of the threat to security in Northern Ireland posed by residual terrorist groups.

Jake Berry: What recent assessment he has made of the threat to security in Northern Ireland posed by residual terrorist groups.

Karl McCartney: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Glyn Davies: What recent assessment he has made of the threat to security in Northern Ireland posed by residual terrorist groups.

Owen Paterson: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I believe that the House will want to pay tribute to Sir Oliver Napier, whose funeral was held yesterday. He was a founding father and leader of the Alliance party, and a member of the power-sharing Executive in 1974. He led the way towards inclusive politics, and was widely respected across the entire community. He will be much missed.
	The threat level in Northern Ireland remains at severe. Despite the overwhelming community rejection of violence, the terrorist groups continue to pose an indiscriminate threat to the safety of police officers and the general public, who want their lives to be free of fear, disruption and intimidation.

Graham Evans: The violent scenes that we have witnessed in part of east Belfast in recent days are obviously a matter of great concern. Will my right hon. Friend join me in sending our support and gratitude to the Police Service of Northern Ireland for its restraint, courage and success in combating that disorder as well as the continuing terrorist threat in Northern Ireland?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and I wholly endorse his comments. I happily put on record the Government’s deep appreciation of the restraint and skill with which the PSNI handled the recent disturbances.
	However, I would put out a public appeal to all those who are considering expressing their views over the next few days. They, too, should show restraint. I remind them that the rule of law will prevail, and that this week, significant prosecutions have resulted from charges against those who broke the law a year ago.

Jake Berry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that close co-operation between the PSNI, the Garda, and Ministers here, in Belfast and in Dublin, is essential in combating the ongoing terrorist threat? Will he join me in congratulating the Garda on its recent discovery of an arms cache and arrests in County Louth?

Owen Paterson: It is almost impossible to stress how closely we are now working. Last week, I met Eamon Gilmore, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, and I had several discussions in the last week with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence. I also recently saw the Garda commissioner. The Garda is to be wholly congratulated on its recent raid at Hackballscross in County Louth, where a significant amount of lethal matériel was apprehended. I am delighted to confirm that the co-operation with the PSNI gets better from month to month.

Karl McCartney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at a time of such pressure on the public finances, the exceptional deal to the give the PSNI an extra £200 million over the next four years is a clear demonstration that this Government will always stand by Northern Ireland?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to remind the House that we endorsed £50 million last year and a further unprecedented £200 million over the next four years. We are absolutely determined to bear down on the current threat, and I am delighted that Matt Baggot, the Chief Constable, to whom I spoke this morning, confirmed that we
	“have the resources, the resilience and…the commitment”
	to meet that threat.

Glyn Davies: All of us in the House are concerned about the recent violence in east Belfast and acknowledge the challenges facing the PSNI. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a very significant role for the Northern Ireland Executive in tackling the underlying causes that fuel that violence?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his question. The problem cannot be contained by security activity alone, however well co-ordinated and well funded by the PSNI and the Garda. Ultimately, this must be sorted out on the ground, by local politicians working with local people. That was confirmed in the Independent Monitoring Commission report that said:
	“The main responsibility for dealing with these challenges rests with the Assembly, the Executive and local politicians, working in conjunction with community leaders, churches, the law enforcement and other public institutions, and ultimately, with the…whole community”.

William McCrea: In 2004, Jane Kennedy, the then Northern Ireland Office Minister, told the House that an inventory of all decommissioned weapons would be published when the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning had
	completed its work. The IICD stood down on Monday, but no inventory was published. Will the Secretary of State tell the House why that pledge was not honoured, and does he accept that that will affect public confidence?

Owen Paterson: The IICD made it clear why it did not publish an inventory. We would like to be in the position to publish this data, as the then Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, Jane Kennedy, was back in 2003-04, but the success of the IICD has been its independence, and it is for it to decide—it is entirely within its remit—where it puts this information. It is now in the hands of the US Secretary of State and cannot be divulged without the prior agreement of the Irish and British Governments.

Margaret Ritchie: I acknowledge the information that the Secretary of State has just given us about dissident activity, the report published by the Independent Monitoring Commission last Monday and the fact that the level of dissident activity is now higher than when it published its first report in 2004. The report stated that loyalist groups were finding it difficult to contemplate going out of business. In that context, does he agree that whatever we do to bring the paramilitary activity to a peaceful conclusion, it will not be achieved by throwing money at gang leaders, as has been suggested in east Belfast over the past few weeks?

Owen Paterson: I just quoted from the IMC report showing that these problems will not be resolved by one simple solution. They have to be resolved on the ground by working with local people at the closest level. That means down to community groups and local politicians. It is not for us to lay down the law from Westminster. That is now in local hands.

Laurence Robertson: Will the Secretary of State give us some guidance on the extent to which the police and his office are getting co-operation from all communities in identifying those responsible for the ongoing terrorist activities on both sides of the divide?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. The police are conducting a review and a serious investigation into the disturbances last week, and it would be wrong to pre-empt what they discover. However, once we have the information from the police, we will make further decisions.

Government Spending

Chris Evans: What assessment he has made of the effects on the service sector in Northern Ireland of reductions in Government spending.

Hugo Swire: Tackling the deficit remains the Government’s biggest priority, and Northern Ireland has its part to play in achieving that outcome. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to boost private sector growth and investment and to help rebalance the economy.

Chris Evans: I am sure that the Minister will have seen that 59,500 people are signed on the dole in Northern Ireland. Whenever anyone losses their job, it is a tragedy for their family and causes hurt and pain. What are the Government going to do about it?

Hugo Swire: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s interest in Northern Ireland, and I hope that it will continue. I hope also that he will join me in celebrating the jobs that the service sector in Northern Ireland has attracted. The New York stock exchange has attracted 400 new jobs; Citigroup financial services will attract 500 jobs over the next five years; and the law firm Allen and Overy has attracted 300 jobs in Belfast. To answer his question directly, I would say that Northern Ireland is a great place for the service industries. It is open and we want more investment, and I hope that he and his party will join us in making that happen.

Shaun Woodward: Well that all sounds very good, but in the past 12 months, the Northern Ireland claimant count has increased by 7%. That is the biggest increase in the UK and 21 times the national average. The Minister will know that the Northern Bank/Oxford Economics survey has now dramatically downgraded economic growth forecasts in Northern Ireland to 1.1% from a previous forecast of 1.9%. The Northern Ireland economy needs help now. What is the Minister going to do?

Hugo Swire: It is regrettable that the Secretary of State is talking Northern Ireland down—[Interruption.] The independent Office for Budget Responsibility’s recent updated fiscal and economic forecasts show that the Government’s plans will deliver sustainable growth in each of the next five years with employment rising by 1.1 million by 2015 across the UK and the deficit falling. That of course includes Northern Ireland. The unemployment rate for Northern Ireland was down by 0.8% over the quarter and the number of unemployed people in Northern Ireland was estimated at 61,000—down 6,000 over the quarter. It is because of the Government’s determination to tackle the deficit and the legacy we inherited from a Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was part that these figures are good.

Shaun Woodward: Regrettably, the only thing that is going down is an economic forecast from 1.9% to 1.1%. Undoubtedly the Minister will update his brief in due course. The Secretary of State proposes a change in corporation tax rates to help in the long term. I seek clarification. We know that the immediate impact of the cut in the block grant will be the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in the public sector, especially in education. However, if the policy in the medium term creates jobs, it follows that there will be additional revenue from income tax and a decrease in welfare payments. He wants the public sector, especially in education, to take the pain now, but in the future, if those benefits flow from increases in jobs and tax revenues, will the Treasury keep the money or will it go to the people of Northern Ireland?

Hugo Swire: The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of corporation tax. There has been widespread consultation on the issue, and all the political parties in Northern Ireland support devolving the power to Northern Ireland. We believe that it will bring growth and jobs;
	equally, we believe that it is important to rebalance Northern Ireland’s economy, regardless of the situation that we inherited. Like me, the right hon. Gentleman represents an English constituency, and he will be aware that Northern Ireland receives about 25% more in spend per head of the population than England. It is therefore important that we rebalance Northern Ireland’s economy and allow it to grow.

Fuel Smuggling

Robert Halfon: What recent assessment he has made of the extent of petrol and diesel smuggling from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland.

Hugo Swire: Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs leads the work to crack down on fuel smuggling and fraud, working closely with the Irish authorities. The Organised Crime Task Force, which is chaired by the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, estimated in its 2011 threat assessment that there is an annual tax loss of £200 million from fuel fraud and legitimate cross-border fuel shopping.

Robert Halfon: Estimates suggest that the Government actually lose between £280 million to £300 million a year to fuel smuggling and laundering in Northern Ireland. That pushes up fuel taxes for everyone, which is deeply unfair. Does my right hon. Friend agree that extending rural fuel pilots to the new economic zones would cut smuggling and save the taxpayer an absolute fortune?

Hugo Swire: I agree that we need to save the taxpayer an absolute fortune, and I have had discussions about this issue with both the Northern Ireland Justice Minister and the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury. I recently brought to the attention of the Exchequer Secretary and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—who is here with us today—the comments of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who has some ideas about various companies that can help with the traceability of fuel. However, I would also point out to my hon. Friend that the “Cross-Border Organised Crime Assessment 2010” said:
	“Changes in exchange and duty rates have made this…less profitable over the past few years than it would have been previously.”

David Simpson: We have just heard about the amount of money that Her Majesty’s Government are losing in revenue to fuel smuggling and laundering. The Minister will be aware of recent findings of large amounts of fuel on the border. Can he please update us on the fuel duty escalator and the possible introduction of a pilot scheme in Northern Ireland?

Hugo Swire: I think that I have just answered that question, which was not dissimilar to that asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). In direct answer to the point about co-operation across the border, relations are extremely good, as is true for all our relations with the Republic of Ireland, not least with the Garda. We are working in close co-operation, hence the success of the Organised Crime Task Force and HMRC in driving down fuel smuggling.

Tourism (VAT)

Mark Durkan: What recent representations he has received on the rate of VAT applied to tourism activities in Northern Ireland.

Hugo Swire: Northern Ireland has enormous attractions for tourists and we strongly support efforts to encourage them to visit. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) raised the issue of VAT rates at a recent meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but these matters are not our direct responsibility.

Mark Durkan: The Minister of State should be aware that as of last week, VAT in the tourism sector in the south of Ireland has been reduced to 9% for 18 months. Similar steps have been taken in France and Germany. Will he and the Secretary of State use their standing with their colleagues in the Treasury to commend a sectorally targeted VAT cut for tourism throughout the UK?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman knows that the EU average for VAT is 20.8%, whereas VAT in the UK is 20%. Germany’s lower rate is simply a mechanism to redistribute money from the centre to the Länder, as Germany has many local tourist—or “bed”—taxes. We would all like lower taxation and we would all like the deficit to be addressed, which is what we are seeking to do, but this is not just about the rates of VAT. London hotels are doing better than they have done for some time, there are more tourist visitors to Northern Ireland than there have been for some time and the hon. Gentleman’s city of Londonderry will be city of culture in 2013. We need to offer people value for money and good hospitality—that I am sure we can do—and the issue of VAT will then become secondary.

Ian Paisley Jnr: On future taxation policy, will the Secretary of State tell us whether the electricity White Paper that is soon to be published will contain proposals to address the fact that Northern Ireland has a single electricity market, linked with the Republic of Ireland? Will it address the implications of those arrangements for providers and users of energy in Northern Ireland, in that they could influence the market disproportionately?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman is very cunning to have got that question in. The Treasury will have heard his remarks, and I shall make certain that the relevant Treasury Minister gets back to him to address those pertinent points.

Disturbances (Belfast)

Mary Glindon: What assessment he has made of the role of dissident republicans in recent disturbances in the Short Strand area of Belfast; and if he will make a statement.

Owen Paterson: The Government utterly condemn all those involved in the localised violence in part of east Belfast
	a fortnight ago. It would be unwise for me to comment on the role played by specific groups while the police investigation is ongoing, but I know that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is determined to bring those responsible to justice.

Mary Glindon: Will the Minister accept that the unanimous condemnation by all the parties in Stormont shows that dissidents of all traditions might have the power to damage the peace process but not to derail it?

Owen Paterson: I am happy to concur wholeheartedly with the hon. Lady’s comment. Northern Ireland has moved on by a huge distance, and everyone can now express their legitimate political aims and pursue them by democratic means. There is absolutely no place for political violence in Northern Ireland today.

Stephen Pound: On behalf of the whole House, may I congratulate the Minister of State on his upgrading of my right hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) to his new role of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? I am not entirely sure whether that was a prediction, but it is certainly one that we would support. Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon), the Secretary of State will be aware that even below the most placid surface, dark cold undercurrents flow, and that we have to address the issue of the sectarian legacy. What is he doing to support groups such as Co-operation Ireland and other peace-builders?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the shadow Minister, who is on perky form this morning. I have regular meetings with the chairman of Co-operation Ireland; I am actually seeing him again today. However, dealing with community groups is very much in local hands. I have had recent discussions with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and I am seeing both of them again tomorrow. This is very much a local issue to be sorted out on the ground according to local circumstances. [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. There are far too many private conversations taking place in the Chamber. We need to be able to hear the Secretary of State.

Jim Shannon: Given the ease with which guns were produced at the Short Strand interface, does the Secretary of State understand the annoyance and anger at the fact that the inventory of the weapons destroyed by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning was not made known? Does he agree that the people of Northern Ireland have a right to know the full extent of the destruction of weaponry that has taken place? The Conservatives and Labour have agreed on that, and the inventory has also been lodged in Washington.

Owen Paterson: I am fully aware of the concerns behind the hon. Gentleman’s question, but we have to take the advice of those very experienced independent professionals, who have pulled off an extraordinary task. I pay tribute to General de Chastelain and his colleagues for what they did, and if it is their professional opinion today that it would not be helpful to publish
	that inventory, we have to take that advice seriously, as do the Irish Government. That is why the inventory has been placed with the American Secretary of State, where it will rest. No one will see it until the British and Irish Governments together decide that the time is appropriate.

Public Expenditure Reductions

Toby Perkins: What assessment he has made of the effect on economic growth in Northern Ireland of reductions in public expenditure.

Hugo Swire: As I said earlier to the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), tackling the deficit has to be the Government’s biggest priority, and Northern Ireland must play its part. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are working with Northern Ireland Ministers to attract growth and investment and to help rebalance the economy.

Toby Perkins: Northern Bank’s quarterly economic forecast states that Northern Ireland’s construction sector has hit a new low and is facing its fourth year of decline. It has already suffered some of the worst job losses anywhere in the country. Do the 10,000 people who could now lose their jobs, on top of those who have already done so, have any cause for optimism, given the complacency that the Minister showed in his earlier answer?

Hugo Swire: I do not think that I showed complacency in my earlier answer. We are fully aware of the effect of the recession on the construction industry not only in Northern Ireland but in the whole of the United Kingdom. It has had a real effect in many of the border areas where people used to go down to the building sites of Dublin and earn their money that way. That is a serious issue for all kinds of reasons. The fact that we came to the aid of the Republic of Ireland has allowed us to have far greater involvement in its investment decisions affecting Northern Ireland, not least those of the banks, as well as in other issues of mutual interest.

Alasdair McDonnell: Does the Minister agree that air passenger duty is helping to strangle economic recovery in Northern Ireland? Does he have any plans to persuade the Treasury to make changes to it?

Hugo Swire: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a consultation process on air passenger duty, which is continuing, and we have discussed the issue with the Finance Minister at Stormont. These are issues that we take very seriously, not least in respect of what I describe as the economic umbilical cord—the link to New York by Continental airlines. We are keen to see that continue. A number of companies, including the New York stock exchange, came to invest in Northern Ireland because of that air route. As I say, we are taking this extremely seriously and we are batting for Northern Ireland.

Human Trafficking

Peter Bone: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on the level of cross-border human trafficking to and from Northern Ireland.

Hugo Swire: Data on the exact level of cross-border trafficking is not available, but there is clearly a cross-border element in many cases. I spoke yesterday to the Northern Ireland justice Minister and I know that he has been working closely with authorities in the Republic of Ireland to tackle this despicable crime.

Peter Bone: I thank the Minister for his response. People are being trafficked across the border with bogus papers. Unfortunately, they are being trafficked from this country into the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is discovering trafficked people whose papers are so obviously bogus that they should never have been admitted to the United Kingdom in the first place. This is an issue that we really need to look at.

Hugo Swire: My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. The Minister for Immigration is working closely with his counterparts in the Irish Republic to ensure that we jointly strengthen our external borders against threats such as human trafficking gangs. I would like briefly to pay tribute, if I may, to my hon. Friend’s work on the all-party group and, indeed, to that of our former colleague, Anthony Steen and the Human Trafficking Foundation, which I hope to accompany to Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend has much to add to the debate. [ Interruption .]

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to hear Mr Gregory Campbell.

Gregory Campbell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ease with which cross-border trafficking between Northern Ireland and the Republic can occur is quite obvious and apparent to everyone. Will the Minister ensure that liaison with the Republic of Ireland’s authorities is stepped up to ensure that those who are being trafficked can be helped, given the problems that they are facing?

Hugo Swire: We all want to hear the hon. Gentleman—I hope others heard him better than I did. The little that I heard was about cross-border co-operation. I can assure him that we have had some recent successes in Northern Ireland, as he will have seen from the newspapers. We work extremely closely with the authorities in the Republic. This is an issue that affects us all. It is a despicable thing, and I draw the attention of all Members to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s report “Forced labour in Northern Ireland”, which has recently come out and bears reading.

Economy

Adam Holloway: What recent assessment he has made of the Northern Ireland economy.

Owen Paterson: Northern Ireland is an excellent place to do business and enjoys world-class aerospace, engineering and health technology companies, but the Northern Ireland economy is still too over-reliant on the public sector, so we are working together with the Northern Ireland Executive to help rebalance it and to boost private sector growth.

Adam Holloway: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that internal squabbles in the Assembly do not undermine the consultation?

Owen Paterson: I am delighted to report that the consultation, which ends on Friday, has received the overwhelming endorsement of all five political parties. The leaders in the Executive came to Kelvatek for the launch of that very successful consultation. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been to Northern Ireland to see what is happening for themselves—as has my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary, who is going again tomorrow—and we will respond in the autumn.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Secretary of State agree that if the Northern Ireland economy is to be helped through the devolution of corporation tax, that must come at a fair, reasonable and acceptable price rather than a price that is detrimental to economic growth?

Owen Paterson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Treasury document makes it clear that every 2.5% reduction in corporation tax requires a £60 million to £90 million reduction in the block grant. That constitutes 0.5% of the block grant, which many economists and businesses consider to be a very modest investment.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Ronnie Campbell: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 6 July.

David Cameron: I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Highlander Scott McLaren of The Highlanders, 4th Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Scotland. This week I witnessed at first hand the sacrifice of our soldiers. I pay tribute to the bravery and dedication of this particular soldier, who was lost in such tragic circumstances. Our thoughts will rightly be with his family and his friends at this very sad time, but we pay tribute to him and all those like him who serve our country so magnificently in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Ronnie Campbell: I echo the sentiments that the Prime Minister has expressed. As a father whose son is serving in the Royal Marines and doing his duty in Afghanistan, I can tell the House that those in my position dread the
	knock on the door saying that their son has been lost in action. Our sympathies obviously go to Scott’s father, mother and family at this time.
	Is it right that yesterday we gave £10 billion to the bail-out of the banks in Greece, that we gave £7 billion to the bail-out in Ireland, and that we—the British taxpayers—give £100 billion a year to the banks in this country for insurance and other purposes? Why does the Prime Minister not get on his bike, go down to see his friends in the City, and sack a few spivs and speculators and bankers—

Mr Speaker: Order. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We have got the gist.

David Cameron: Let me say first that it is this Government who have imposed a levy on the banks so that they pay more every year than they paid in bankers’ bonus tax under the last Government. As for Greece, I kept us out of a European bail-out, and as for Ireland, its economy is so close and so integrated with ours that it is right for us to give it support. That, I think, is the right approach, but this Government are being tough in ensuring that the banks pay their fair share.

David Burrowes: Severe droughts, conflicts and food prices have combined viciously in the horn of Africa, creating desperate hunger and threatening the lives of millions. Given that aid agencies are short of funds, what are the Government doing to help?

David Cameron: As ever, the Department for International Development is being extremely effective. It is working very quickly to try to help in this appalling crisis, in which 10 million people face the threat of starvation. That demonstrates once again that we are right to maintain and increase our spending in this area, difficult as the arguments sometimes are. Our difficulties here and elsewhere in Europe are nothing in comparison with what is being experienced by people who face starvation and death unless we help them.

Edward Miliband: May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Highlander Scott McLaren of The Highlanders, 4th Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Scotland? He was a young man who was serving our country, and died in the most horrific circumstances. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with his family and friends.
	The whole country has been appalled by the disclosures about phone hacking: the 7/7 victims, the parents of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, and, of course, the phone of Milly Dowler. That anyone could hack into her phone, listen to her family’s frantic messages and delete them, giving false hope to the parents, is immoral and a disgrace. Given the gravity of what has occurred, will the Prime Minister support the calls for a full, independent public inquiry to take place as soon as practical into the culture and practices of British newspapers?

David Cameron: Let me be very clear: yes, we do need to have an inquiry—possibly inquiries—into what has happened. We are no longer talking about politicians and celebrities; we are talking about murder victims—potentially terrorist victims—having their phones hacked
	into. What has taken place is absolutely disgusting, and I think everyone in this House, and indeed this country, will be revolted by what they have heard and seen on their television screens.
	Let me make a couple of points. First—people need to know this—a major police investigation is under way. It is one of the biggest police investigations currently under way in our country, and crucially—I hope Opposition Members will listen to this—it does not involve police officers who were involved in the original investigation that so clearly did not get to the truth. It is important that we have inquiries: inquiries that are public; inquiries that are independent; and inquiries that have public confidence.
	It seems to me that there are two vital issues that we need to look into. The first is the original police inquiry and why that did not get to the bottom of what has happened, and the second is the behaviour of individual people and individual media organisations and, as the right hon. Gentleman says, a wider look into media practices and ethics in this country. Clearly, as he says, we cannot start that sort of inquiry immediately because we must not jeopardise the police investigation, but it may be possible to start some of that work earlier. I am very happy to discuss this with him, with other party leaders, and with the Attorney-General and the Cabinet Secretary, to make sure that we get this right and lessons are learned from what has become a disgraceful episode.

Edward Miliband: Let me say to the Prime Minister that I am encouraged that he does now recognise the need for a full public inquiry into what happened. He is right to say that it can be fully completed only after the police investigation has taken its course, but, as he also said, that may take some years. It is possible, as I think he implied, for the Prime Minister to start the process now, so may I make some suggestions in that context? He should immediately appoint a senior figure, potentially a judge, to lead this inquiry, make it clear that it will have the power to call witnesses under oath, and establish clear terms of reference covering a number of key issues: the culture and practices of the industry; the nature of regulation, which is absolutely crucial; and the relationship between the police and the media. I wonder whether he can respond on those points.

David Cameron: I want to respond positively, and let me do so. First, on the two issues I mentioned—the conduct of the earlier police inquiry and the broader lessons about ethics in the media—I do not think it is possible to start any form of investigation into the former until the police investigation is completed, because I think there would be a danger of jeopardising the current police inquiry. Responding positively to what the right hon. Gentleman said, I do think it may be possible to make a start on other elements, and, as I have said, I do not want us to rush this decision; I want us to get it right, having discussed it with other party leaders, the Attorney-General and the Cabinet Secretary. All too often, these sorts of inquiries can be set up too quickly without thinking through what actually needs to be done.

Edward Miliband: I think the Prime Minister is implying that this can start moving now, and I think it is very important that it does so; just because we cannot do
	everything does not mean we cannot do anything. It is very important that we act. A year ago to the day, the Prime Minister appointed the Gibson inquiry to look into the treatment of detainees by the intelligence services, with criminal cases still pending.
	Let me ask the Prime Minister about what happens in the meantime, pending this public inquiry. We have consistently said that the BSkyB bid should be referred to the Competition Commission and not dealt with in the way the Culture Secretary has done. The Prime Minister must realise that the public will react with disbelief if next week the decision is taken to go ahead with this deal at a time when News International is subject to a major criminal investigation and we do not yet know who charges will be laid against. Does the Prime Minister agree that the BSkyB bid should now be referred to the Competition Commission, to provide the breathing space that is required?

David Cameron: First, let me answer the right hon. Gentleman’s point about Gibson, because this is a good and fair point. We established the Gibson inquiry but it has not been able to make much progress until criminal proceedings have been brought to an end. There is a good reason for this; clearly you do not want to jeopardise a police operation, and you do so if you start questioning witnesses through a public inquiry process at the same time as they are being questioned through a police process. That is the reason for doing this, but, believe me, I want us to get on with this issue, and the faster we can set up other elements of an inquiry, the happier I will be.
	On the issue of BSkyB, what we have done is follow, absolutely to the letter, the correct legal processes. That is what the Government have to do. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has a quasi-judicial role and he has to follow that. I note that the leader of the Labour party said yesterday that the issue of competition and plurality is “a separate issue” from the very important issue we are discussing today. What I would say is that these processes must be followed properly, including by Ofcom, and it is Ofcom that has the duty to make a recommendation about a “fit and proper person”. Those are the right processes; this Government will behave in a proper way.

Edward Miliband: I am afraid that that answer was out of touch with millions of people up and down this country. The public will not accept the idea that, with this scandal engulfing the News of the World and News International, the Government should, in the coming days be making a decision outside the normal processes, for them to take control of one of the biggest media organisations in the country. I know that this is difficult for the Prime Minister, but I strongly urge him to think again and send this decision to the proper authorities—the Competition Commission. As I say, this would provide breathing space for legitimacy and for the proper decisions to be made.

David Cameron: I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that the decision making has been through the proper processes, that it is right that the Government act legally in every way and that that is what they have done. One of these is an issue about morality and ethics, and a police investigation that needs to be carried out in
	the proper way—they have total independence and must do that. The other is an issue about plurality and competition, where we have to act under the law. Those are the words he used yesterday and, in just 24 hours, he has done a U-turn in order to try to look good in the Commons.

Edward Miliband: This is not the time for technicalities or low blows. We have said consistently, throughout this process, that this bid should be referred to the Competition Commission—that is the right way forward. The Prime Minister, instead of engaging in technicalities, should speak for the country on this issue, because this is what people want him to do. I hope that he will go off from this Question Time and think again, because it is in the interests of the media industry and the British public that this is properly referred to the Competition Commission in the way that all other bids are dealt with.
	What we also know, as well as that we need a public inquiry and that we need the BSkyB bid referred to the Competition Commission, is that these were not the actions of a rogue individual or a rogue reporter, but part of a wider, systematic pattern of abuses. The public see a major news organisation in this country where no one appears prepared to take responsibility for what happens. Nobody is denying that Milly Dowler’s phone was hacked and nobody is denying that it happened on the watch of the current chief executive of News International, who was editor of the newspaper at the time. Will the Prime Minister join me—if he believes in people taking responsibility—in saying that she should take responsibility and consider her position?

David Cameron: First, let me deal with the issue of technicalities. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that when you are dealing with the law, you have to look at the technicalities because there is something called due process that you have to follow. That is necessary for any Government and I am sure that he understands that. As for News International, everyone at News International must ask themselves some pretty searching questions and everyone at News International is subject to one of the largest police investigations under way in this country. I think that we should let the police do their work. They must follow the evidence wherever it leads and if they find people guilty of wrongdoing, they should have no hesitation in ensuring that they are prosecuted.

Edward Miliband: I do not know from that answer whether the Prime Minister says that the chief executive of News International should stand down or not. I am clear: she should take responsibility and stand down. These events show a systematic set of abuses that demonstrates the use of power without responsibility in our country and it is in the interests of our democracy and the public that such issues are sorted out. With the biggest press scandal in modern times getting worse by the day, I am afraid the Prime Minister has not shown the necessary leadership today. He has not shown the necessary leadership on BSkyB or on News International. Is it not the case that if the public are to have confidence in him, he must do the thing that is most difficult and accept that he made a catastrophic judgment in bringing Andy Coulson into the heart of his Downing street machine? [ Interruption . ]

David Cameron: What people—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister should not have to shout to be heard and neither, for that matter, should the Leader of the Opposition. It is thoroughly disorderly and the Prime Minister will now be heard.

David Cameron: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I take full responsibility for everyone I employ and everyone I appoint and I take responsibility for everything my Government do. What this Government are doing is making sure—the public and I feel appalled by what has happened, and the fact that murder victims and terrorist victims have had their phones hacked is quite disgraceful. That is why it is important that there is a full police investigation with all the powers the police need. That is why it is important that we have those inquiries to get to the bottom of what went wrong and the lessons that need to be learned. That is why we also need to inquire as to how we can improve the ethics and morals of the press in this country and ensure that they improve for the future. That is what needs to be done, that is what the Government are doing and we do not need to take lectures from the right hon. Gentleman about it.

Nicky Morgan: Year 9 pupils at Limehurst high school in my constituency have joined hundreds of other pupils to work on the “Send my Sister to School” campaign. Will the Prime Minister add his support to this cause and should not this campaign remind us that good education, here or overseas, transforms children’s lives and their life chances?

David Cameron: I am delighted to welcome the campaign that my hon. Friend mentions and her personal support for it. The fact is that across our world 39 million girls are out of school and even if they are in school, the gender gaps we still see are appalling. We in the UK, through our aid budget, are securing schooling for 11 million children by 2015. That is more than we educate in the UK, but we will be able to do it at 2.5% of the cost. This is a good investment for Britain and for British taxpayers that will ensure that we reduce inequality in our world.

Gareth Thomas: Will the Prime Minister explain whether he thinks that the cost of his NHS reforms, which are set to rise even further—as we now know thanks to the revelation that a new super-quango will be created in the NHS—might be partly responsible for the funding squeeze affecting health services in Harrow? That has put at particular risk services at the popular Alexandra avenue polyclinic in my constituency.

David Cameron: What we have seen since this Government have taken office is more than 2,000 more doctors but 4,000 fewer managers. We are cutting bureaucracy by a third—[ Interruption. ] I know they do not like to hear it, but if we had followed their plans and cut NHS spending, the number of doctors, nurses and operations would be going down. Just this morning, we have seen the figures for the number of diagnostic tests in the UK going up. That is because of the investment that is going in under this Government.

Mike Freer: The Prime Minister will be aware of the news this morning that Portugal’s debt has been downgraded to junk status. Does he not agree that it is a warning to every Member of this House that we cannot put off difficult decisions and that the only plan B is bankruptcy?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right: plan B stands for bankruptcy. We can see what happens if Governments do not get a grip of their debt and their deficit. That is what this Government are doing, but the Labour party has learnt nothing.

Karl Turner: Does the Prime Minister agree that the maximum sentence for the offence of dangerous driving does not properly reflect the potential harm caused to victims, some of whom are left paralysed and brain-damaged? Will he support me and Labour Front Benchers in moves to increase the maximum sentence to seven years?

David Cameron: I know that the hon. Gentleman speaks with great personal knowledge about this not just because of a constituency case that he wrote to me about but because of his work as a barrister before he came to this place. I do believe there is a problem when there is a high sentence, rightly, for causing death by dangerous driving, but only this two-year sentence in cases such as the one he brought to my attention in which someone was damaged permanently for life, and yet the maximum sentence was two years. In our Sentencing (Reform) Bill we are looking at this issue and we hope to make some progress.

David Morris: Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the alleged bail-out mentioned by the Opposition of £10 billion is not that and that if we are not in the IMF we will not be a global player? Does he also agree that the Opposition need reminding that in the 1970s the IMF bailed out their Government?

Mr Speaker: I know that the Prime Minister will want to deal with the first part of the question, but not the second part because it was disorderly.

David Cameron: I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend said. It was remarkable yesterday that the Labour party put itself in the position of opposing our involvement in the IMF. Britain is a serious global economy and we should take responsibility for serious global issues, including through the IMF.

David Simpson: Does the Prime Minister agree that details of all the weapons and explosives decommissioned in Northern Ireland should be made public as promised? Will he agree to have negotiations with the Irish Government to move forward to the Americans to see that that happens?

David Cameron: The point is that the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning did not provide us with an inventory. It was an independent body and that was a decision for it to take—difficult as I know that is. It stated:
	“We would not wish, inadvertently, to discourage future decommissioning events by groups that are actively engaged today, nor to deter groups that have decommissioned their arms from handing over any arms that may subsequently come to light”.
	This is difficult and we are all having to do, in Northern Ireland as elsewhere in the world, difficult things in order to bring conflict to an end and keep conflict at an end. That is what the independent commission’s report was doing.

Adrian Sanders: Is not the real issue about delaying an inquiry that the public have little confidence in the Metropolitan police where investigations concerning News International are concerned? May I remind the Prime Minister of the question I asked him on 27 April about whether he would have
	“a full judicial inquiry and, in particular, look at the relationship between the Metropolitan police and News International?”—[Official Report, 27 April 2011; Vol. 527, c. 168.]

David Cameron: Clearly, this is a very important issue. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has discussed it with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner this morning and they want to continue with the investigation that is under way. But let me try to reassure the House and the hon. Gentleman about this because even before we get to the point about independent and public inquiries, what the public need to know is that the police are going to go about their job properly in this investigation, so they do need to know that this is an investigation completely separate from the previous investigation. As it stands today, it is one of the largest police investigations going on anywhere in our country.

Teresa Pearce: Victims of knife crime in London have increased by more than 8% in the past three months. On the streets of London we have children carrying knives and other children afraid of the journey to and from school. Last Friday, on a busy shopping parade, a 16-year-old constituent of mine was stabbed to death. Two children have been arrested in connection with that. What will the Prime Minister do to ensure that the Mayor of London gets a grip on this problem, which was one of both the Mayor’s and the Prime Minister’s election promises?

David Cameron: The case that the hon. Lady raises is an absolutely tragic one and there are still too many victims of knife crime, particularly among young people in our cities and particularly in London. What we are doing is creating a new offence with a mandatory prison sentence to send a very clear message to those who carry knives. The offence will apply to those with a knife who threaten and endanger others in a public place. That will send a clear message to those who possess a knife that if they threaten anyone they will go to jail.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who pay back early their student loans are doing the right thing and should be encouraged? If so, how is that consistent with the Government’s policy, which is apparently one of discouraging people from paying back early, and indeed of penalising them for early repayment of student loans?

David Cameron: I urge my hon. Friend to look carefully at the detail of our proposals. We want a progressive system in which people who earn more pay back more, which is why nobody pays anything until they earn £21,000, and people do not start to pay back in full until they earn £35,000. We propose that people who pay back, say, £3,000 a year in earnings should not be discouraged, because in many ways that is the right thing to do.

Toby Perkins: In opposition, the Prime Minister made it clear that Hizb ut-Tahrir should be banned, but last week he fell back on exactly the same explanations that he refused to accept when they were given to him by the previous Prime Minister. What has changed?

David Cameron: We have banned the Tehrik-e-Taliban—we have taken action. As my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor will hastily testify, it is endlessly frustrating that we are subject to so many legal requirements, but I am afraid that we have to be a Government under the law. [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. The House will want to hear Mr Robert Halfon.

Robert Halfon: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given that the Olympics and the diamond jubilee will take place next year, is the Prime Minister aware that immigration and special branch officers at Stansted airport are concerned that the common travel area channel in its current form allows illegal migrants, Islamists and terrorists into the country without their passports being checked? Will he take urgent steps to close that loophole immediately?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Passport-free travel between the UK, the Crown dependencies and the Republic of Ireland has been in place for many years, and it offers real economic and social benefits. I accept that those routes can be open to abuse, and we are determined to resolve that. The UK Border Agency is working closely with Ireland and others to make sure that that happens, but we want to try to do so without disadvantaging people who have been able to take advantage of that common travel area up to now.

Mary Glindon: The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions have both said that British employers should employ British workers, so will the Prime Minister stop the Department for Work and Pensions offshoring existing jobs in North Tyneside to Bangalore?

David Cameron: Of course I will look closely at the case that the hon. Lady makes, but every Government—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to hear the Prime Minister’s answer, and so does the House.

David Cameron: We need to make sure that our welfare reforms encourage those people who sit on welfare and who could work actually to go out to work.
	Under the Labour Government, yes, we had economic growth, but there were 5 million working-age people living on benefits. That is not good enough, and we are going to change it.

Andrew Bingham: Does the Prime Minister agree that birthing centres in rural areas provide a valuable and irreplaceable service to the local community, and every effort should be made to retain them—a message that hundreds of my constituents and I are sending to Derbyshire County NHS as it considers the future of the Corbar birthing centre in my constituency of High Peak?

David Cameron: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We want to see maternity networks so that mums can make a choice about where they give birth, whether in a community setting, midwife-led, or whether in a district general hospital with all the paraphernalia of consultants and the rest of it. It should be a choice made by them with their GP and others on what is right for their needs.

Margaret Beckett: Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday, when Bombardier had to announce the redundancy, among others, of skilled engineers and designers, the company made public for the first time the fact that it had offered to establish a new academy in this country for the design and manufacture of cars for the next generation of high-speed trains for the UK and across the world—a global centre of excellence, providing more jobs and jobs with even higher skills. He will not have had time to familiarise himself with the details, but will he undertake to look into that with care to give substance to the commitment that he made in my constituency to British manufacturers?

David Cameron: I will look carefully at what the right hon. Lady has said about this issue. I want to see more British jobs in manufacturing as, indeed, we are seeing across the country. In the case of the Bombardier train contract, the procurement process was designed and initiated by the Government of whom she was a member. We are bound by the criteria that they set out, so we have to continue with the decision that has been made according to those criteria. Separately, we are setting out to ask what more we can do under the rules to make sure that we boost manufacturing and not have situations like this in future.

Bob Blackman: Twelve days ago a young constituent of mine was the victim of a vicious knife attack. Last weekend another 16-year-old young man was also the victim of a knife attack. Will my right hon. Friend join me in
	condemning this upsurge in gang-related violence and confirm that those who carry knives will face a custodial sentence if apprehended?

David Cameron: As I said to the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce), it is important that we send a clear message about this. We are doing that with the new offence which carries a mandatory sentence. That is a signal to anyone who is contemplating carrying a knife, but we should be frank with ourselves in the House and in the country that purely looking at the issue from a criminal justice perspective is not the answer. We have to ask ourselves why so many young children are joining gangs, and why our families and communities are not doing more to keep them close and prevent the carrying of knives. That is something that runs right across Government and across our society as well.

Ben Bradshaw: It is simply not the case, as the Prime Minister claimed earlier, that the Government have followed the normal process in relation to the News Corp takeover of BSkyB. Why does he believe that the assurances that News Corp executives have given are any more credible than the assurances they gave over phone hacking?

David Cameron: The point is that we have followed the correct legal processes. If you do not follow the correct legal processes, you will be judicially reviewed, and all the decisions that you would like to make from a political point of view will be struck down in the courts. You would look pretty for a day, but useless for a week. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. If the House can overcome its collective mirth, it will give a hearing to Mr Ian Swales.

Ian Swales: Last Friday I visited Grangetown school in my constituency, which is the 17th most deprived primary school in the country. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the school and community on their work to convert an area of demolished houses into a school playing field, and will he ensure that the Government continue their pupil premium policy to support the school’s excellent work?

David Cameron: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the support that he is showing to his local primary schools. I believe that the pupil premium, which will pump billions extra into education, particularly for the most deprived children in the most deprived parts of our country—[Interruption.] It will make a huge difference to our schools. For all the noise from the Opposition, they had 13 years to introduce a pupil premium. What did we get? Absolutely nothing.

Afghanistan

David Cameron: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Afghanistan.
	From the outset this Government have sought to take a more hard-headed, more security-based approach to our mission. As I have said, we are not there to build a perfect democracy, still less a model society. Yes, we will help with the establishment of democratic institutions. Yes, we can improve infrastructure, develop education, encourage development. But we are in Afghanistan for one overriding reason: to ensure our own national security by helping the Afghans to take control of theirs.
	This means building up the Afghan security forces so we can draw down British combat forces, with the Afghans themselves able to prevent al-Qaeda from returning and posing a threat to us and to our allies around the world. This is particularly poignant today, on the eve of the sixth anniversary of 7/7—an attack that was inspired by al- Qaeda and executed by extremists following the same perverted ideology that underpinned the 11 September attack in 2001.
	Three hundred and seventy-five British servicemen and women have died fighting in Afghanistan to help strengthen that country and keep Britons and Britain safe from another 9/11 or 7/7. Thousands more, including many civilians, have risked their lives, and hundreds have been injured fighting for the security of our nation. They have been part of an international coalition involving 48 countries with a specific UN mandate, working at the invitation of a democratically elected Government. Though there have been many, many difficult times, we should be clear about what has been achieved.
	In 2009, my predecessor as Prime Minister told the House that some three quarters of the most serious terrorist plots against Britain had links to Afghanistan and Pakistan. We must always be on our guard, but I am advised that the figure is now significantly reduced. International forces have been bearing down on al-Qaeda and their former hosts, the Taliban, in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. In Pakistan, Osama bin Laden has been killed and al-Qaeda significantly weakened. In Afghanistan, British and international forces have driven al-Qaeda from its bases and, although it is too early to tell for certain, initial evidence suggests that we have halted the momentum of the Taliban insurgency in its heartland in Helmand province.
	We are now entering a new phase in which the Afghan forces will do more of the fighting and patrolling, and our forces more training and mentoring. As President Obama said in his address last month, the mission is changing from “combat to support.” When we arrived there was no one to hand over to—no proper army, no police force. In many places across the country the Afghan security forces now stand ready to begin the process of taking over security responsibility.
	Success in Afghanistan requires a number of critical steps. The first is to ensure that Afghan security forces are able to secure their own territory. There have been well-known problems, especially with the Afghan police, but there has been real progress in the past two years. General Petraeus went out of his way to praise the recent performance of Afghan forces in a number of
	complex and dangerous operations. The Afghan forces are growing rapidly and are ahead of schedule to meet the current target of having 171,600 in the Afghan army and 134,000 in the Afghan police by the end of October this year. They are now deploying in formed units and carrying out their own operations.
	There have been some real successes. Afghan national security forces have prevented insurgents from reaching many of their targets, and just eight days ago, when a major hotel was attacked in Kabul, they dealt with the situation. This was a major, sophisticated attack. They dealt with it professionally and speedily, calling in assistance from a NATO helicopter only to deal with insurgents on the roof. As General Petraeus stressed to me, they acquitted themselves extremely well. It is this growing strength and capability that will allow us over time to hand over control of security to Afghan forces and draw down our own numbers.
	We remain committed to the objective, shared by President Karzai and the whole of NATO, that the Afghans should assume lead security responsibility across the whole country by the end of 2014. Last month President Obama announced that the US will withdraw 10,000 of its forces from Afghanistan by the end of this year and complete the removal of the US surge—some 33,000—by the end of next summer. At the time of the US surge, the UK increased its core force levels by an extra 500. For our part, I have already said that we will withdraw 426 UK military personnel by February 2012. Today I can announce that the UK will be able to reduce its force levels by a further 500, from 9,500 to 9,000, by the end of 2012. This decision has been agreed by the National Security Council on the advice of our military commanders.
	These reductions reflect the progress being made in building up the Afghan national security forces. Indeed, it is worth noting that for every US soldier who leaves as the surge is removed, two Afghans will take their place. This marks the start of a process that will ensure that by the end of 2014 there will be nothing like the number of British troops who are there now, and they will not be serving in a combat role. This is the commitment I have made, and this is the commitment we will stick to.
	Having taken such a huge share of the burden and performed so magnificently for a decade, this country needs to know that there is an end-point to the level of our current commitment and to combat operations. This decision is right not only for Britain but for Afghanistan. It has given the Afghans a clear deadline against which to plan and has injected a sense of urgency into their efforts.
	Although there is a clear end-point to our military combat role, after 2014 the UK will continue to have a major strategic relationship with Afghanistan: a development relationship, a diplomatic relationship and a trade relationship. Above all, we have a vital national security interest in preventing Afghanistan from once again becoming a safe haven for international terror, so although our forces will no longer be present in a combat role we will have a continuing military relationship.
	We will continue to train Afghan security forces. In Afghanistan I announced plans for a new officer training academy, which President Karzai specifically asked me for, and which I am proud Britain is able to deliver. We intend to lead the academy from 2013, in addition to maintaining our current role in the officer candidate
	school, which is due to merge with the academy in 2017. We will continue our efforts to help Afghanistan build a viable state, but our support cannot be unconditional.
	In my meeting with President Karzai, I made clear the Afghan Government’s responsibility to ensure that British taxpayers’ money is spent well and spent wisely. I emphasised to President Karzai just how important it is that he personally grips the problems with the Kabul bank and the need for a new International Monetary Fund programme. I also urged him to support due democratic process and to tackle corruption, and I made it very clear that, although Britain wants to stand by Afghanistan beyond the end of our combat mission, we can do so only on the basis that Afghanistan must help itself, too.
	Almost all insurgencies have ended with a combination of military pressure and political settlement, and there is no reason why Afghanistan should prove any different. As we strengthen the Afghan Government and security forces, so we will back President Karzai’s efforts to work towards an Afghan-led political settlement. The death of bin Laden presents the Taliban with a moment of real choice. Al-Qaeda are weakened; their leader is dead.
	Last month, the United Nations adopted two separate sanctions regimes, creating a clear distinction that separates the Taliban from al-Qaeda. Local peace councils have now been established in almost all of Afghanistan’s provinces. These have already allowed more than 1,800 people from 17 provinces to be enrolled on the scheme for reintegration, so we should take this opportunity to send a clear message to the Taliban: now is the time to break decisively from al-Qaeda and to participate in a peaceful political process.
	In this task, we need Pakistan’s assistance. As I discussed with President Zardari last week, that process is now as much in Pakistan’s interests as Britain’s or Afghanistan’s, because the Taliban pose a mortal threat to the state of Pakistan as well.
	There is no reason why Afghanistan should be destined to remain a broken country. It has abundant mineral wealth and fertile agricultural land, and it stands at the crossroads of Asia’s great trading highway. It has succeeded in the past when not wracked by conflict, but Afghanistan still has many challenges ahead.
	There are real security issues and a lack of Government capacity, but 10 years ago Afghanistan was in the grip of a regime that banned young girls from schools, hanged people in football stadiums for minor misdemeanours and banished radios and any form of entertainment—while all the time incubating the terrorists who struck on 9/11 and elsewhere.
	Afghanistan, for all its imperfections, has come a long way. Today, it is no longer a haven for global terror, its economy is growing and it has a Parliament, a developing legal system, provincial and district governors and the basic building blocks of what could be a successful democracy.
	In Helmand province, which with Kandahar, we should remember, was a stronghold of the Taliban and the insurgency, there is now a growing economy, falling poppy cultivation and many more effective district governors. The fact that President Karzai has been able to choose Lashkar Gah as one of the areas to include in
	the first phase of transition is a sign of the transformation that we have helped to bring about there.
	As we enter this new phase of transition, I am sure the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to our servicemen and women who have made such incredible sacrifices to defend our national security. While we have been going about our daily lives, they have been out there day and night, fighting in the heat and the dust and giving up the things that we all take for granted.
	That is the true character of the British Army, and it is why we are so incredibly proud of all our forces and the families who support them, and why we are so grateful for everything that they do for us. I commend this statement to the House.

Edward Miliband: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our forces, who serve with such dedication and such heroism in Afghanistan, and let me just say to him that, whatever differences separate us on other issues, I commend the substance and the tone of his statement today and, indeed, his approach to the issue of Afghanistan.
	As we prepare to remember tomorrow the victims of the attacks of 7/7, we are all reminded of why we are engaged in Afghanistan: to secure our security at home. That is why Opposition Members continue to support our forces in Afghanistan. We continue to support also the Prime Minister’s intention to end the British combat role in Afghanistan by the end of 2014. It is right that we make it clear to the Afghan Government and their security forces that they need to step up and take responsibility for the future of the country, and it is right that we make it clear to the British people that this is not a war without end.
	This year and next we must maintain the combination of military pressure, the accelerated build-up of the Afghan security forces and the work on basic governance and justice. I support the Prime Minister’s plan to maintain British troop levels above 9,000, as they have been for the past two years, for this fighting season and the next. That will give our forces the best chance of consolidating the situation before the process of transition to Afghan control accelerates in 2012 and 2013, when our forces can start to come home in greater numbers.
	May I first ask the Prime Minister about our troop commitments? Will he assure the House that if our reductions go slower than those of other countries—in particular, America—that will not cause British forces to take on a disproportionate share of the burden in Helmand? Can he assure the House that detailed plans for troop draw-down will always be based on military advice and conditions on the ground? I am sure that he can give that assurance. We ask our troops to do a difficult job in testing circumstances. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that our armed forces will continue to receive all the equipment they need in the months ahead, including the 12 Chinooks he promised but for which the order has still not been placed?
	The bravery and professionalism of our armed forces deserve to be given the best chance of success. As the Prime Minister said in his statement, that will be realised only if we see political progress in Afghanistan. The political track is as important as the decisions on troop numbers and military strategy. As I understand it, there are still talks about talks. I am sure the Prime Minister
	will agree that much work needs to be done between now and the Bonn conference in December, and indeed after it, if we are to make the most of this opportunity. I have some specific questions on that issue.
	First, to build on the excellent work of Stefan di Mistura, the UN special representative, will the Prime Minister press for the Security Council to appoint a senior figure, perhaps Mr di Mistura or someone from the Muslim world, to be empowered to mediate between the Afghan Government, ISAF and those members of the Taliban who renounce violence? Such a figure could help to secure the commitment of countries in the region to support a new political settlement, reflecting their shared interest in long-term stability in Afghanistan.
	Secondly, although it must remain a red line that the Taliban and others must commit to a peaceful political process, the constitution need not be set in stone. Will the Prime Minister press the Afghan High Peace Council to consider constitutional reform, including a more devolved Afghan state, which I believe is one demand that could unite people with political differences? Those steps need to be taken now so that by the time of the Bonn conference in December the ground has been prepared and real progress can be made.
	As we look to a stronger Afghanistan, we all recognise that there are issues of governance and the rule of law. Will the Prime Minister say more about the ongoing scandal over the Kabul bank? I welcome that he raised the issue with President Karzai. Does he agree that this problem symbolises the inability of the Afghan Government at times to distance themselves from practices that threaten to undermine the Afghan economy and international development assistance? Will he tell us more about the role that Britain is playing to get the Afghan Government to take the necessary steps to tackle the crisis in the Kabul bank and allow the International Monetary Fund to resume its proper support?
	Finally, I turn to Pakistan. We all accept that long-term stability in Afghanistan depends on stability in Pakistan. When I met President Zardari last week, I commended the hard work and sacrifice of the Pakistan security forces in tackling violent extremism in the north-west of the country. As the Prime Minister said in his statement, the situation in Pakistan continues to be serious. There is a danger that the bringing to justice of Osama bin Laden, which should be welcomed on all sides, will not have that effect in Pakistan. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to put British support for counter-terrorism in Pakistan at the heart of our relationship with the Pakistan Government?
	We all want to see British troops come home at the earliest opportunity, not least the family and friends of those who are currently serving in Afghanistan. However, we also want the campaign to be concluded in a way that ensures that their service and sacrifice has not been in vain, and that Afghanistan and the wider region move into a stable future, rather than once again posing a serious threat to our security and that of other countries. I welcome today’s statement as a step along that path. I say to the Prime Minister that I will continue to work with him on Afghanistan so that we can redouble our efforts on the military and political fronts to give Afghanistan the stability it needs for the future.

David Cameron: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his response to the statement and for the very good cross-party support not only for the mission
	but for how we are proposing to draw down and bring it to an end. He is right to say that the combination of military pressure, the build-up of the ANSF and a political process can enable us to meet our objective.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions, the first of which was on troop commitments. Yes, we are withdrawing troops more slowly than the US, but of course the US had a surge of about 33,000 troops. Its enduring number is more like 70,000, so obviously it makes sense for our draw-down to be proportionately smaller. It is important for us to have the draw-down in the way I have said.
	The right hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that we must be careful as the draw-down takes place that we do not put a disproportionate burden on the remaining British troops. I am very clear that we must not enter into large new operational areas. We should continue the excellent work that we are doing in Helmand province, handing over progressively to the Afghans. Indeed, we are seeing the transition of Lashkar Gah and it might well be possible to transition other parts of Helmand province in a very effective way before the end of the process.
	On the issue of equipment, one thing that struck me on the visit from which I have just returned, and indeed on visits over the past couple of years, is that there is now a real sense among our troops that they have the equipment they need. The body armour is much improved, as is the quality of vehicles, such as Mastiffs. There is no use of Snatch Land Rovers outside bases any more, and what has taken place is very positive. Obviously some of that action was initiated under the previous Government, and it has been continued under this Government. Funding the urgent operational requirements in Afghanistan is working well. Clearly we need to ensure that we have helicopter capacity and that Chinooks and the rest go ahead.
	On talks, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for a new international figure. I feel that perhaps the time for that has passed. I think that we now need an Afghan-led process. There are now much more effective discussions taking place between Afghanistan and Pakistan, with a much more positive attitude on both sides. We should do what we can to give that every possible support.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about the High Peace Council. I met former President Rabbani, and I think he is doing extremely good work in that process. We should not be completely hung up on every element of the current Afghan constitution, but it is important to give a reassurance to the Government, Parliament and people of Afghanistan that there is not some secret agenda to carve their country up. There is not. We want to see a strong and stable Afghanistan, with everyone within it playing a part in its future.
	On the Kabul bank, we are very clear about what is necessary. We need a forensic audit of what went wrong and what happened, and we need the recapitalisation of the central bank so that the financial system is properly supported. The UK is massively involved in that process, and we are working for a positive outcome. We need it, because otherwise funds cannot flow into organisations in Afghanistan in the way that they need to.
	The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right to commend the Pakistani security forces for what they have done in the north-west frontier and elsewhere. On the British
	relationship with Pakistan, what is important at a time when it is clearly under huge challenge is obviously to talk about our counter-terrorism relationship, but also to stress all the parts of our relationship and explain that we are there for a democratic and peaceful Pakistan for the long term, just as we want to have a long-term relationship with Afghanistan. Both those countries fear, and have good evidence from the past, that some in the west will walk away. We must convince them that our long-term interests are to be with them and stand with them.

Nicholas Soames: May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the magnificent performance of the men and women of all three services and all those who support them in Afghanistan? May I particularly commend the decision that he has pushed forward to have an officer training school in Afghanistan and provide the personnel to be instructors? The British Army is brilliant at that and will do it very well. May I suggest that he might also consider whether our resources might extend to doing the same thing to provide help in training civil servants?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I misspoke—I referred to the spirit of the British Army, but I should have talked about all the British armed services. It is very striking when one is there just how many RAF personnel, and indeed how many Navy personnel, are in Afghanistan, not least the Marines. I had the great pleasure of being able to speak to both the UK Royal Marines and the US Marine Corps—an odd thing to do on Independence day, but I struggled through none the less.
	My hon. Friend is right to mention what we are calling “Sandhurst in the sand”, which I think is the right proposal for British involvement in the future. Clearly there is also a case for doing more on civil service training, and we will look at that as well.

David Miliband: May I beseech the Prime Minister to reconsider his rejection of the idea of a UN mediator? His own arguments about the record of the Afghan Government, and indeed its present activities, show why an independent figure from the Muslim world needs to be engaged there, with the Afghan Government as a party but also with western nations and neighbours as parties.
	Secondly, will the Prime Minister pick up the idea of a council of regional stability? Although he is right to mention Pakistan, the truth is that stability in Afghanistan requires the engagement of all its neighbours, not just the Pakistanis. The dangers in Afghanistan relate not just to the presence of the Taliban in the political system but to some of the northern and other groups. A council of regional stability is essential to provide the type of support for a stable Afghanistan that we all want to see.

David Cameron: I listen carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, who has considerable experience in this. I agree very much about ensuring that Afghanistan’s neighbours are fully involved. One point I would make, though, is that from what I have seen there is no shortage of ideas for new processes to wrap around that. The problem is a lack of commitment. We need to
	see real commitment from the Afghans to work with the Pakistanis and real commitment from the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans.
	President Karzai made the very reasonable point to the Pakistanis when he recently visited that there must be an ability to allow Taliban who want to talk to go to talk, but that those Taliban who do not want to talk must be arrested and confronted by the Pakistanis. It seems to me that it is about commitment. We can wrap all the processes in the world around it, and I will certainly look at what the right hon. Gentleman says, but in the end what we should be about is encouraging real commitment to make the peace process work.

Menzies Campbell: May I endorse the points that have just been made about the need for regional involvement in stability? The Prime Minister went to some lengths to explain what the United Kingdom would do after the withdrawal of combat forces. What confidence does he have that other countries—for example, members of NATO or the European Union—will be willing to contribute in a similar way?

David Cameron: I think there is good evidence that there is a real commitment in NATO. Many NATO partners say that we joined this together and should leave together. There is a growing understanding that what needs to be done in cases such as this is to have an enduring relationship rather than just a short-term relationship. That argument is well understood, and the commitment that other NATO members have made to the training positions in Afghanistan is a pretty positive story.

David Winnick: As someone who takes a somewhat different view on Afghanistan, may I make it quite clear that I pay tribute, as I have previously, to the British troops involved for their bravery?
	Will the Prime Minister continue to reject the arguments of those who oppose ending the British combat role in the next four years? As far as I am concerned, I would like to see it done earlier. Is there not a very strong feeling in this country that, after 10 years, the British people want out?

David Cameron: I think what the British people want is some certainty about the length of the mission and what it involves. My belief is that because we have been in Afghanistan since 2001 and in Helmand province since 2006, it is reasonable to say to people that we are going to be there until the end of 2014 in large numbers and in a combat role, but that after that the numbers will be lower and we will not be in a combat role. That gives people in our own country some certainty, but it also puts some pressure on the Afghans to ensure that they have really worked out how they need to take their responsibilities. The advice that I receive from our military commanders is that this is doable. Yes, it is challenging, but it is on track to be achieved.

James Arbuthnot: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the modest withdrawal of troops next year, and along with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas
	Soames) I also particularly welcome what the Prime Minister said about the officer training academy in Afghanistan. Will the military relationship after 2015 extend beyond that academy to training, mentoring, logistics and other support?

David Cameron: Yes, it will. Let us look at the numbers—we are talking about roughly 120 British personnel for the training academy, supplemented by other countries’ personnel. Indeed, the US has agreed to put, I think, $38 million into the training academy. Clearly we want to do more over and above that, and the National Security Council will discuss precisely how much we should commit and how much we will spend. Yes, of course we will be going over and above that as part of an important relationship to help Afghanistan build and maintain its capacity.

Alistair Darling: May I join the Prime Minister in expressing my condolences to the family of Scott McLaren, who was killed in such tragic circumstances earlier this week? He came from Edinburgh. His loss of life is a reminder to us of the sacrifice being made in Afghanistan by so many young people from this country.
	When the Prime Minister spoke of drawing down troop levels next year, I think I am right in saying that he meant reducing our troops to the numbers that we had at about the beginning of 2009. However, I was unclear about what will happen after 2014. Are we talking about maintaining such a significant presence after that time? I appreciate that the troops will be in a different role and doing different things, but the House will want to have some idea whether we are talking about maintaining such a significant presence, and also of where other countries stand on that.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman asks a totally appropriate and legitimate question. What I have said is that the numbers are going down to 9,000 by the end of 2012. We must then work out the right number for 2013 and into 2014. I have said that after that, we will not be in Afghanistan in anything like the same number, nor in a combat role. I am not in a position now to give a figure for, as it were, the enduring commitment, through 2015 and beyond and the training role, which involves the officer training academy and other training work. We are not in a position yet to put a figure on that, but it will obviously be way down from the figures that we talk about today.

Richard Ottaway: The Prime Minister reaffirmed today that the stated policy objective in Afghanistan is to deny al-Qaeda a base from which it can attack the UK and other British interests. From that, it is fair to assume that he continues to receive intelligence that al-Qaeda remains a threat in Afghanistan. I know that this is difficult, but will he consider how that information and intelligence can be shared with the House?

David Cameron: Obviously, the whole process of sharing intelligence is a difficult vexed issue, and there are some difficult recent historical connotations. What I said in my statement is that there was a time when the lion’s share of plots that threatened people in UK came from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. The number of such plots has come down significantly since then.
	Clearly, al-Qaeda has been absolutely hammered in Pakistan—it has lost a huge number of its senior leaders—and it has nothing like the presence in Afghanistan that it had when it was hosted by the Taliban in 2001. Our aim should be not just to exclude al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, but to ensure that the Afghans can go on ensuring that exclusion without the support of foreign troops. That is our real enduring aim.

Hugh Bayley: I express my admiration for the service personnel, including the men and women of York’s 2 Signal Regiment, whom I met in Afghanistan when I went with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly three weeks ago. As our troops come home we will, thanks to the NATO training mission, leave behind very strong, and very well-trained and armed, Afghan national security forces. However, at the current rate of progress we will also leave behind fragmented politics. Given the history of military dictatorship and authoritarian states in the region, I believe that Afghanistan could go the same way. What are our Government doing to try to prevent that from being the medium-term outcome?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The more mechanical task of training the Afghan army and police is now going very well. There were errors and mistakes in the early days, but I think that they have been ironed out. I was very struck by what General Petraeus and Lieutenant-General Rodriguez said about the quality of the Afghan army. Clearly, the long pole in the tent—as they like to call it—is how strong, sustainable and vigorous is the quality of Afghan governance and democracy. The moment there is a stand-off between the Executive on the one hand and the Parliament in the other, we must settle those issues.
	As I said, I do not think that we will achieve perfection—Afghanistan is a country without a long-standing democratic history—but we must help to put in place basic democratic institutions and functioning government. The British effort is hugely geared towards that task.

Bob Stewart: Given that for many years our Government negotiated with the Provisional IRA while we were still fighting, I suspect that at some level, we will be negotiating with the Taliban. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that one of the most important things that we must put forward in any negotiations with the Taliban is that al-Qaeda should never become part of Afghanistan if the Taliban were ever to form a Government, or part of a Government, in that country?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right. Let me make two points. First, this must be an Afghan-led process. This is about the Afghans trying to bring together in their country all the elements that should form a part of its future. Clearly, if the Taliban separate themselves from al-Qaeda, and if they are prepared to give up violence and accept the basic tenets of the Afghan constitutions, those are end conditions. If they can do that, there is the potential for a political process that can speed the end of this conflict. Clearly, we must go ahead on the basis that we are building the Afghan army and continuing with very tough operations to take out Taliban insurgents, but that there is also the opportunity
	for a political integration process at the low level, and a reconciliation process at the high level, that can speed the end of the conflict, and we can end up with a more stable and peaceful Afghanistan.

Mike Gapes: The Prime Minister referred to the recent attacks on the hotel in Kabul, which is well inside several security rings. Are there not worrying indications that the Taliban are infiltrating parts of Afghanistan where they previously had not been? How confident can we be that the Afghan authorities and President Karzai will be a in a position of complete control over the internal security of Afghanistan by the end of 2014?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the capacity of the Afghan Government and the scale of the Afghan security forces, which is improving all the time. The point I would make is that there has been rather unfair press about the hotel. In fact, the Afghan security forces were able to clear it of insurgents rapidly. There was of course a regrettable loss of life, but the operation was fast and effective. They drove the insurgents on to the roof, where they were effectively taken out with the assistance of NATO. We saw a similar attack on a hotel in Mumbai, and we have seen suicide attacks in other countries. All I can say is that people who are pretty tough nuts, such as General Petraeus and Lieutenant-General Rodriguez, were very impressed by what the Afghan security forces did. We should be talking that up, not talking it down.

Bernard Jenkin: Although my right hon. Friend, and indeed President Obama, are under all kinds of pressures to speed up the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and although that would be the wrong reason to withdraw, may I commend my right hon. Friend on setting a timetable, because that is how to accelerate the political process in Kabul and make President Karzai sit up and engage in the some of the talks that are already taking place? I also agree with my right hon. Friend that it would be quite wrong to internationalise that process. It must be done through the tribal structures and Loya Jirgas in Afghanistan, by and for Afghans. It is not something that we can supervise from the UN.

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for his question; perhaps I can adjudicate between the two poles in the House. The process must be Afghan led. We do not want a bad, tribal, poorly thought-through carve-up that will lead to future instability. Clearly, there must be a proper reconciliation process, but what I have seen—a timetable has perhaps assisted with this—is a very positive engagement from Afghanistan in Pakistan on their shared future. We can push, encourage and work with those two countries, but in the end they must make decisions together on how they will be more secure.

Ann Clwyd: Everybody would welcome the fact that peace negotiations are seriously under way. May I ask the Prime Minister for assurances that the rights of women will not be sold down the river? Those rights have been hard fought for. We do not want to see women once again imprisoned in their
	homes, and children—girls—not allowed to go to school. Will he ask the President to include women in his negotiating team? Many women are fearful of what will happen in Afghanistan in future, and they deserve such assurances.

David Cameron: The right hon. Lady makes a very good point. I would stress that prominent Afghan women are involved in that reconciliation process through the high peace council, which is run by former President Rabbani. Clearly, nobody wants a return to the days of the Talibanisation of Afghanistan, but we must accept that if we want a speedier end to the insurgency and long-term stability in Afghanistan, what President Karzai has referred to as his “lost cousins”—those who have lost their way—must be brought back into the body of Afghanistan. We found that fantastically difficult with Irish republican terrorists, but none the less, people who were previously committed to violence, maiming and bombing people are now sitting in government in Stormont. The same process must happen in Afghanistan, difficult though it is.

John Baron: May I press the Prime Minister again on the importance of talks with the Taliban being non-conditional? Non-conditional talks with the IRA helped to bring about peace in Northern Ireland, and I suggest that the US wish for al-Qaeda and the Taliban to sever all ties should be part of a settlement rather than a precondition.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right, in that what matters is the end of the process. If we can get into a political process in Afghanistan with people who have separated from al-Qaeda, given up violence and accepted the basic tenets of the Afghan constitution, that will be a success. However, we cannot shade or fudge the idea of letting armed terrorists into government. We need to have some red lines in our minds about what is possible and appropriate, otherwise we will not end up with stability or any form of functioning state.

Caroline Lucas: The Prime Minister will know of increasing concern about the use of drones in Afghanistan and elsewhere, particularly about the risk that they will strike civilians. Just yesterday it was confirmed that a drone had killed four Afghan civilians and injured two others. Given that military officials are saying that almost one third of the Royal Air Force could be made up of drones within the next 20 years, will he review the use of this policy?

David Cameron: Of course it matters hugely that we avoid civilian casualties, whether in Afghanistan or in Libya. However, I do not think that the answer is to turn our face away from the modern technology that can now pinpoint people who are doing us harm. The technology being used in Afghanistan, including drones and other aerial ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance—cameras, has been hugely effective in driving back the Taliban insurgency and taking out people who are doing us harm.

Bob Russell: 16 Air Assault Brigade recently returned from its fourth deployment to Afghanistan, much good having been achieved. I urge caution over the speed of the withdrawal of British troops in case all that good work comes to nothing. In
	particular, I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to what happened in the summer of 2008, when the four battalions of the Parachute Regiment joined forces to transport a turbine to the Kajaki dam. Three years later, it still has not been connected up.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I do not want us to jeopardise the success achieved so far. From my many conversations with our service personnel, many of whom are going back to Afghanistan for a second, third or, as he said, even a fourth time, it seems to me that morale is extremely high, and that there is a sense that we are achieving good things in Afghanistan. However, I think that we need to focus on what is effective. One problem has been that we should have applied earlier the effective measures of counter-insurgency that we are now pursuing—protecting the larger population centres and ensuring that the main transport routes are open. Some of what we have done in years gone by might have had important symbolism for Afghans, but the real symbolism lies in protecting large population centres so that people can go about their daily lives.

Paul Flynn: Does the Prime Minister support the campaign by his own constituents and many families of the bereaved for the processions that bring the bodies of the fallen back to this country to be rerouted through urban areas so that local people can publicly express their respect, the families can express their grief and the country can be reminded of the true cost of war?

David Cameron: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue. Obviously, as the constituency MP, I take a close interest in it. I have tried to allow for the greatest possible consultation with the armed forces, the MOD and local councils in Carterton town and across West Oxfordshire district council. I believe that we have arrived at a sensible route with a far better centre for families within the airbase. Money is also being spent on a proper memorial garden where families will be able to show their respects to their loved ones. A lot of thought has gone into this, and of course we must keep it under review and ensure that it is done in the right way. However, there is sometimes a great danger—whether it is the local MP or the Prime Minister—of stepping in without allowing people to determine what is a good outcome that will be well done. Let us see how it works in practice before we jump to conclusions here.

Julian Lewis: If we are to achieve a political settlement involving the Taliban, there must be an incentive for the Taliban to negotiate. At the moment, however, there is no such incentive. Has the Prime Minister received any indication from our American allies that they are contemplating the preservation of a long-term strategic base and bridgehead area in the region that would demonstrate to the Taliban, in any future Government in which they participate, that the return of al-Qaeda or other international terrorist organisations would not be tolerated and could easily be punished?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. However, I think that there is an incentive to join a political process, because Taliban mid and high-level leaders are being killed in ever larger numbers. Actually,
	we are now seeing, in some cases, lowering morale among the Taliban within Afghanistan because their “brave” mid and high-level leaders are cowering over the border in Pakistan. That is what has happened, and we need to keep up that pressure. Of course we need to work with the Afghans so that they have the long-term capability to go on dealing with the insurgency, if it continues—even in a minor way—along the lines that he suggests. However, no one should think that the Taliban are not under pressure; they are under huge pressure because of the surge and the effectiveness of the operations in which we are also engaged.

Frank Roy: Will the Prime Minister guarantee that as we draw down troops in Afghanistan, we will not draw down the number of people who provide security for the diplomatic teams that will be left in the country?

David Cameron: Obviously it is hugely important that we secure those who work in our embassy. I had the great good fortune of meeting many people who work in the Kabul embassy, which is now one of our biggest embassies. They have to make huge compromises to work in such a difficult location, and their security needs to be absolutely at the top of our agenda.

Rory Stewart: It takes wisdom to set a date for withdrawal, but it takes enormous courage to stick to that date. Will the Prime Minister reassure us that no amount of guilt at lost lives, over-optimistic promises from generals or fear of lack of progress will ever shake his resolve that Britain will be entirely out of combat operations by the end of 2014 at the very latest?

David Cameron: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance because it is important to give people a sense of an end time to these combat operations. As he said, it is always difficult to change the lay-down of British armed forces. I think that the early decision I made to focus on central Helmand and to get out of Sangin has been hugely important in ensuring that we have the right concentration of forces on the ground to do the job that we need to do. It is always difficult to come out of somewhere, but it is an important measure to make us more effective. That does not mean that lives have been lost in vain, however, and the Americans continue to do excellent work in Sangin. Nevertheless, we have to make hard-headed and difficult decisions for the long-term good of our armed forces and country.

Keith Vaz: In his discussions with President Karzai, did the Prime Minister raise the issue of the exodus of thousands of Afghanis from Afghanistan? As he knows, I have raised this matter in the House before. Fifty thousand Afghanis crossed the border between Turkey and Greece last year. Although he accepts that the threat from al-Qaeda is receding in Afghanistan, it is increasing in Yemen. What are we going to do about country shopping by al-Qaeda?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. One of the roles of the National Security Council is to sit down and look at the scale of the threat that we face, and where that threat is coming from. Clearly the threat picture is changing, in that the number
	of threats coming out of the Pakistan-Afghanistan area is receding, and the number coming from Yemen and Somalia is growing. The nation has to work out how smart we can be in combating that threat. That means learning lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan about how best to combat extremism and violence in those countries. I am determined—with the good advice of the Home Affairs Committee, I am sure—to learn those lessons.

Angie Bray: I welcome today’s statement, and in particular the Prime Minister’s reminder to President Karzai that his Government must be responsible for ensuring that British taxpayers’ money is spent wisely and well. Can the Prime Minister reassure British taxpayers that measures are in place to ensure that that happens?

David Cameron: I can give that assurance, but clearly not everything has been satisfactory up to now. The situation with the Kabul bank has been appalling, but we now have it moving towards a solution, because there will be a forensic audit and recapitalisation of the bank. However, we need to put in place procedures within the Afghan Government so that there is not the level of corruption and wasted money that there has been.

Gisela Stuart: I fully accept the Prime Minister’s argument that he cannot be entirely precise about how many of our troops will be in Afghanistan by the end of 2014. However, I am somewhat surprised that he can be so certain that they will be there in a non-combat role. If the progress made over the next few years is not as positive as he anticipates, surely he would not allow our troops there to be placed in a situation where security could not be secured, and which might require them still to have a limited combat role.

David Cameron: Let me turn the hon. Lady’s question the other way round. If we are still in Afghanistan in 2014 in our current numbers and still in a combat role, clearly there would be something fundamentally wrong with the strategy that we would be pursuing. The point is that we have a programme and a plan. It involves the build-up of the Afghan national security forces, which is going well, it involves working with our allies, which is going well, and it involves close co-operation between us and the Afghans, all of which can be done. That is what we should focus on, and that is the programme that we will deliver.

Rehman Chishti: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Does he agree that a key element in achieving long-term stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan will be providing good quality basic education, which will give people hope and opportunities, and lead them away from entering into sectarian and ethnic violence?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. If we look at the huge population growth in Pakistan in particular, and the fact that more than 10 million children are now out of school, we have to ask what sort of future will they grow up into and what sort of extremism will they be prey to. That is why, in spite of the frustration
	sometimes felt at Afghanistan being unable to do more on education itself, we are right to have the targeted programme that we do, in order to put more Pakistani children through school.

William McCrea: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and pay tribute to the bravery and dedication of our soldiers and security personnel in Afghanistan. Will he ensure, however, that we will withdraw from Afghanistan at a time when we have achieved our overriding goal of ensuring our national security, as he has stated in the House today?

David Cameron: The answer to that is yes. Our goal is that Afghanistan can secure itself from al-Qaeda and terrorist bases without the need for British or other forces. That is the goal, and that is why building up Afghanistan’s security apparatus is so central. All the other things that we have talked about today—schooling, development, education—are important, but security is the absolute key.

Stephen Gilbert: I welcome the Prime Minister’s focus on an Afghan-led political solution, but in honour of the 375 brave British service personnel who have died in Afghanistan, that solution must include the rights of women, rights for other minorities, religious freedom and a commitment to developing democracy. Can he assure me that in detailed talks, those will be some of his red lines with the Taliban?

David Cameron: Those things are guaranteed through the Afghan constitution, and Afghanistan has made huge steps forward. Knowing President Karzai as I do, I know that he would not agree to an Afghanistan that was miles away from the sort of human rights and development goals that my hon. Friend wants to see progressed. However, we have to have a hierarchy, as it were, and the hierarchy of need from the UK’s point of view is to focus on security and the Afghan Government’s capacity to secure their own country. Other things have to take their place behind that.

John Woodcock: The Prime Minister seems to be guaranteeing that the 12 extra Chinooks will be ordered. Is that right?

David Cameron: What I am saying is that we have made announcements about Chinooks being ordered, and we will stick to those announcements.

Mary Macleod: Britain can help to achieve peace and stability in Afghanistan by leaving a lasting long-term legacy. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement today about the officer training school, but does he not agree that for education for all, especially young girls, is also important?

David Cameron: I do agree: if we want to see long-term stability in Afghanistan, that cannot be possible by excluding half the population from being educated. Indeed, if we look right across north Africa and the middle east, the empowerment and education of women is important not just for human rights, but for economic development and for peace and progress.

Jim Shannon: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement to the House today. Back in March, round about St Patrick’s day, several hon. Members, including me, had the opportunity to visit Afghanistan, and in particular Lashkar Gah. At that time, we met some of the people from the police training college. One could not fail to be impressed by their energy, enthusiasm and commitment. However, they needed a $6 million new college, yet they told us that there was no start date or completion date for it. If there is to be a handover of security, the police will need training. Can the Prime Minister give us a commitment on the start and completion dates of the police training college in Lashkar Gah?

David Cameron: I shall make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, the police training college in Lashkar Gah is up and running, and it is working. I have visited it myself, and it is taking huge steps forward. One of the tragedies of the situation is that police training was the responsibility of other countries. Britain has had to take on some of those responsibilities directly, and we have done so very well. He will be interested to know that Lashkar Gah town will be one of the first places in Afghanistan to effect a transition. It is imminent: indeed, already today, security in Lashkar Gah is basically provided by Afghans for Afghans. Having been to Lashkar Gah many times over the last five years, I find that fact pretty staggering and pretty encouraging, and I think others should too.

Philip Hollobone: Given that the raw material for such a high proportion of the illegal drugs on Britain’s streets starts in Afghanistan, what progress is being made on getting farmers to grow something other than poppy, and is the Prime Minister confident that the Afghan Government will continue that work once we have left?

David Cameron: We are seeing progress on that, and Britain has invested in the wheat seed distribution
	project in Helmand. However, one of the lessons that I have learned from going to Afghanistan repeatedly over the last five years is that we can talk all we like about destroying crops and the rest of it, but if we want to do something about poppy cultivation the real key is building roads, because we have to enable the Afghans to get their produce to market. If they do not have legitimate produce to get to a legitimate market, the drug dealers will prey on them, give them their poppy seed and collect their poppy at the end of the harvest, and the job is done. This is about roads and government capacity as much as it is about the criminal justice system.

Thomas Docherty: Given the Prime Minister’s remarks about the need to build Afghanistan’s political structures, he will have seen today’s media reports, so can he confirm whether the UK is considering sending senior civil servants or senior Officers of this House to Kabul on either a permanent or a temporary basis?

David Cameron: I had the great honour of meeting the Speaker of the Afghan Parliament. As I understand it, there will be good and strong relations between this Parliament and the Afghan Parliament, which is beginning to establish itself—but I will leave decisions on what Mr Speaker wants to do to Mr Speaker.

Graham Jones: I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments about education in Afghanistan, but can he update the House on how much progress has been made from investing in schooling and education over the years, and on where that leaves us now?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. I shall write to him with the specific figures for the number of Afghans in school in Helmand province and elsewhere. I think that he will see very good progress, but I will write to him with the exact details.

Sunday Trading (Amendment)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Mark Menzies: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to permit local authorities to vary restrictions on Sunday trading on a temporary basis; and for connected purposes.
	The objective of this measure is to provide a temporary and modest economic stimulus during the period of the Olympic games. This will be an exceptional period. Britain has invested billions in the games, and we must maximise the revenue opportunities from the hundreds of thousands of new tourists who will come into Britain at the time. My desire is therefore to help to offset the huge cost of the event by ensuring that every opportunity is taken to boost the economy during those six weeks or so.
	I support Sunday opening. Large stores are restricted to opening for six hours, between 10 am and 6 pm; smaller shops are allowed to open for longer. Scotland has complete deregulation. This is about showing that England and Wales are open for business. We need to create a provision for events such as the Olympics, and we need to offset the financial costs involved. I am a supporter of the games, which will bring hundreds of thousands of international tourists and global opinion formers into the United Kingdom.
	I want to make it clear from the start that the effects of this measure would be temporary in nature, as it would apply to only about half a dozen Sundays. This would be a small adjustment that could make a huge difference to thousands in the retail trade. This is not a partisan issue; I know that many Members on both sides of the House support this common-sense proposal.
	Many of my colleagues will have been to the Olympic park and seen the enormous amount of redevelopment there. Some of the largest regeneration projects in the UK have been undertaken in the run-up to London 2012. They include the construction of Europe’s largest urban shopping centre. As the Prime Minister has said, we must utilise the potential that such a place provides for the country as a whole, by providing opportunities for the unemployed.
	Millions of people will be visiting Britain in 2012; it will be the year to showcase our country to the world. We have an incredible opportunity to demonstrate what Britain is capable of, and this opportunity, not just for London but for the whole of the UK, is one that we must get right. I am also mindful of my own north-west. It is imperative that visitors are encouraged to return. Let us make allowances for people: for the shop workers who are desperate for overtime, for the ordinary worker, for the unemployed and for the consumer who wants more convenient shopping hours.
	The preparation for the Olympics has already shown that we are able to adapt to the pace of change necessary to meet the big demands of a major international event. The royal wedding was a prime example of Britain at its best. So far, the major construction work has been on time and on budget, but it is also crucial to get the small things right. In the run-up to the 2012 games, London has no choice but to adjust. Allowances have already been made for Olympic car lanes, alterations to supermarket deliveries and changes to meet carbon emission targets.
	Let us make allowances for people: for the shop worker who is desperate for overtime during this exceptional period; for the employer who wants to adapt to cope with the millions of extra customers and a different pattern of trade; and for the average consumer who will want flexible shopping so that they can fully enjoy the games.
	Certain areas of Britain, such as Oxford street in London, and Blackpool and the Lake district are tourist attractions in themselves. We must utilise the opportunity that the Olympics offer by giving businesses the chance to extend opening hours to consumers on the Sundays up to and during these exciting events. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to showcase the best of the UK’s culture, creativity and industry. It is anticipated that Britain will receive hundreds of thousands of extra visitors per day. They will include 14,700 athletes, alongside the 20,000 accredited journalists. Tens of thousands of global opinion formers will be visiting our country. Scotland already has freer Sunday trading hours. England and Wales therefore need to be prepared for the challenges that these additional visitors will place on the country.
	As the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has said, we must
	“boost national self-confidence, enhance the UK’s reputation abroad”
	and
	“attract high value inward investment.”
	It is vital that we have the necessary services and facilities for the largest number of visitors that Britain will ever have seen. Olympic events will be going on at all times of the day. What a missed opportunity it would be if tourists with money in their pockets leaving an event late on a Sunday afternoon were to find the shops closed. The Olympic games also coincide with the annual summer holidays for schools and universities in England and Wales. Those young people will fill the temporary jobs that will be created during the Olympic games, not to mention the numerous temporary jobs created by local businesses. This is a fantastic opportunity to encourage our young people into work, and to improve their future employment prospects.
	The Olympic games will bring benefits to areas across the UK. These include Old Trafford in my own north-west, a world famous football stadium that will be used to host nine football matches during the games. It is situated next to the Trafford Centre, a hugely popular shopping venue. During the passage of my Bill, we can deal with the powers for the Welsh Assembly and local authorities that might not choose to take advantage of this temporary measure. I do not wish to compel local authorities to have additional Sunday trading hours that they do not want.
	Britain is a nation of many sporting events. The football and rugby Saturday and the summer Wimbledon are just some examples of the many events that attract thousands of visitors to the UK from across the globe. It is important that communities should be able to provide the flexibility for such events, so as to maximise economic gain. It makes little economic sense to make basic amenities unavailable to tourists and citizens alike during the games. At a time when the Government must focus on rebuilding the economy, creating jobs and boosting the disposable income of our people, we must not waste the unique opportunities that this major
	event will provide. What more powerful legacy could there be than creating opportunities for people to get jobs and earn some money?
	With the retail sector booming in central London, having been boosted by foreign tourists, we must ensure that all our shops are able to deal with the increased demand. We must adjust their hours to cope with the fact that many people will stay at home and watch television because they wish to maximise the hours on a summer Sunday evening. I wish to give similar opportunities to my constituents in the north-west. One reason for this measure is the increase in tourism. The London Olympics are set to be worth at least £100 million in extra revenues to the UK retail sector, and we must meet this demand. We are not the first nation to face this issue. The French Parliament recently passed a measure to give local authorities in popular tourist destinations the power to extend Sunday trading hours. This is an example of how Sunday trading legislation can adapt to meet local demands.
	I am committed to preserving the tradition of Sunday as a family day and ensuring the rights of shop workers. Having worked in the retail sector all my life, I am a champion of the primary legislation that sets in stone those rights, and it is rightly sacrosanct. No worker should ever be put in a position of having to work on a Sunday against their wishes. I believe that there is a real need for this temporary economic boost, however, and that we therefore need to reassess the current provisions. It makes little sense to impose Sunday trading limits on shop workers and the retail industry when transport, pubs and restaurants can be responsive when demand arises.
	This measure is not a radical change. It is a practical, temporary tweaking of the common-sense provisions that have already been accepted by Parliament in 1994. It is an economic stimulus measure. Certain occasions demand that shops open for longer on a Sunday. Scotland has been sensible in this regard for many years, and this provision will have only positive benefits for our local economies. This move comes at a significant time in the history of our country with the coming of the Olympic games in 2012. England and Wales have demonstrated that they can adapt to the challenges that major events pose. Let us send a message that Britain is open for business and let us use this opportunity to maximise revenues from tourists. We have shown that we can get the big things right; let us not make the mistake of ignoring the smaller details.

Therese Coffey: Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak against the Bill, Mr Speaker. I recognise that the House is keen to move on to the next subject, however, so I shall not press the motion to a Division.
	It is perhaps unusual to hear a speech from a woman opposing a proposal for more time to shop. I suggest, however, that the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) is introducing would have unintended consequences. He started to make a convincing case for extending Sunday hours generally, and I am not sure why he is trying to restrict his proposal to the Olympics if he believes that it would be helpful as an economic stimulus. He also said that only the larger stores are currently restricted. I encourage him to think again about his measure, so that we can once again reinforce the role of small, independent stores or smaller high street stores in boosting economic activity.
	My hon. Friend suggested that the provisions would have only a temporary application. I am rather nervous about that, because such provisions usually set us on the road to permanent change. He also mentioned new employment opportunities, but stores in the Westfield shopping centre and similar places will not take on extra shop workers just to deal with an extra 24 hours of work spread across six Sundays.
	I believe that my hon. Friend’s Bill sends out the wrong message. The Olympics will be a once-in-a-generation—perhaps once-in-a-lifetime—opportunity for everyone in this country to participate in and enjoy. He said that people could not be compelled to work on a Sunday, but I think he will find that that is no longer true. I will not press the motion to a vote today, but I give him notice that I will oppose the Bill as it passes through its parliamentary stages.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mark Menzies, Conor Burns, Rehman Chishti, Philip Davies, Thomas Docherty, Stephen Gilbert, Daniel Kawczynski, Chris Kelly, Andrew Rosindell, Iain Stewart, James Wharton and Priti Patel present the Bill.
	Mark Menzies accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November 2011, and to be printed (Bill 217).

Business of the House (Today)

Motion made, and Question  proposed ,
	That Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates) be applied to proceedings at this day’s sitting as if paragraph (2) were omitted.—(Sir George  Young .)

Alan Beith: Will the Leader of the House confirm that, because the following motion will reduce the time available for the estimates debates tabled by Select Committees, an opportunity will be provided to debate the Prevent strategy—likely to be the one squeezed out today—at a later date?

George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that question and I can give him that assurance. He is entitled to injury time and it will be provided.
	Question put and agreed  to .

Phone Hacking

Emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24)

Mr Speaker: We come now to the emergency debate on phone hacking at the News of the World. The House will observe that in light of the level of interest, I have, at this stage, imposed a seven-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions which is scheduled to take effect after the contributions from the Front Bench—from the Minister and the shadow Minister—and obviously after the opening contribution of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I simply make the point that that limit will be reviewable depending upon the length of early contributions to the debate.

Chris Bryant: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of whether there should be a public inquiry into the phone hacking at the News of the World; and the conduct of the Metropolitan Police Service between 2006 and 2011.
	At 8.50 am tomorrow, it will be six years since the London bombings, which saw 52 people murdered and 700 injured. Today we hear that the police are investigating whether the mobile phones of several of those who lost family members in those attacks were hacked by the News of the World. One such family member spoke—very movingly, I thought—on the “Today” programme this morning. Another has been in touch with me and there may be several others. In addition, I am told that the police are looking not just at Milly Dowler’s phone and the phones of the families of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, but at the case of Madeleine McCann and of 15-year-old Danielle Jones, who was abducted and murdered in Essex in 2001 by her uncle, Stuart Campbell.
	The charge sheet is even longer, unfortunately. I am told that the News of the World also hacked the phones of police officers, including those investigating the still unsolved murder of Daniel Morgan. This is particularly worrying considering the collapse of the long-delayed trial of the private investigator, Jonathan Rees, who also worked for newspapers, earlier this year. Scandalously, it also seems that the News of the World targeted some of those police officers who were, at various times, in charge of the investigation into the News of the World itself. We can only speculate, Mr Speaker, on why they would want to do that.
	These are not just the amoral actions of some lone private investigator tied to a rogue News of the World reporter; they are the immoral and almost certainly criminal deeds of an organisation that was appallingly led and had completely lost sight of any idea of decency or shared humanity. The private voicemail messages of victims of crime should never, ever have become a commodity to be traded between journalists and private investigators for a cheap story and a quick sale, and I know that the vast majority of journalists in this country would agree with that.
	If we want to understand the complete moral failure here, we need only listen to the words of Mr Glenn Mulcaire himself:
	“Working for the News of the World was never easy. There was relentless pressure. There was a constant demand for results. I knew what we did pushed the limits ethically. But, at the time, I didn’t understand that I had broken the law at all”.
	To be honest, the ethics are the big issue here, just as much as whether the law was broken. The journalists and the private investigators should be ashamed of what happened. But so, too, should those who ran the newspaper. It is simply no excuse to say they did not know what was going on. Managerial and executive negligence is tantamount to complicity in this case. I believe that if Rebekah Brooks had a single shred of decency, she would now resign. God knows, if a Minister were in the spotlight at the moment, she would be demanding their head on a plate.
	Let me be clear, though. The News of the World is not the only magician practising the dark arts. In 2006, the Information Commissioner produced a devastating report, “What price privacy now?”, which detailed literally hundreds—in fact, thousands—of dubious or criminal acts by journalists or agents of national newspapers: illegally obtaining driving licence details, illegal criminal records or vehicle registration searches, telephone reverse traces and mobile telephone conversions. He listed 1,218 instances at the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday alone, 802 at The People and—I say sadly as a Labour Member—681 at the Daily Mirror. Earlier this year, the new Information Commissioner revealed that many patients’ records held by the NHS are far from secure from the prying eyes of journalists. That is the most private information possible about members of the public.

Nicholas Soames: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that I share with him—indeed, I have debated it with him across the Floor of the House—an appreciation of the Information Commissioner’s excellent report, “What price privacy now?”? Does he also agree that, regardless of party politics, it is shameful that the Government of the day did not take action when that report was published in the first place?

Chris Bryant: I will come on later to make some remarks, with which I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree, about how we have all failed in this process. I believe that the whole political system has failed in this. I take my own share of the blame for that. I asked Rebekah Wade questions about this a long time ago, but in the end the whole of the political system in this country did not take action. Now is our chance to do so.

Julian Huppert: rose —

Chris Bryant: I am not keen to give way too often, as I am aware that many others want to speak.
	This issue is not just about what went on at the News of the World; it is also about the behaviour of the Metropolitan police. In the course of the limited investigation of 2006, which led to the conviction of Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman, the police secured a vast amount of information. They could have—and, I believe, should have—interrogated that information so that it became evidence. They could have approached all those affected. They could have contacted the mobile phone companies to ensure their customers were better protected. Unfortunately, they did none of those things.

David Hanson: My hon. Friend may recall that as Police Minister at the time, I answered an urgent question on 9 July 2009, and put down a written ministerial statement on 14 July and again on 21 July in good faith. Included in one of the ministerial statement was this comment made by the Metropolitan police:
	“The Metropolitan Police has also confirmed that it does not consider that there is anything else substantive in relation to additional evidence or information that would justify it re-opening the original investigation.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 11WS.]
	Uncomfortable though that might be for the police—and, possibly, for myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who was Home Secretary at the time—does that not justify having an investigation of the police performance at that time?

Chris Bryant: It pains me to say this as well, but the honest truth is that a lot of lies have been told to a lot of people. When police officers tell lies or at least half-truths to Ministers of the Crown so that Parliament ends up being misled, I think it amounts to a major constitutional issue for us to face. I hope that there will end up being a full investigation into that element and that we will come to the truth, but at the moment what hangs around is a very dirty smell. We need the Metropolitan police to be trusted—not just in London but across the whole of the United Kingdom. That is why we need to fight on this issue.
	Did the reason that nothing happened have anything to do with the closeness between the Metropolitan police and the News of the World? After all, we know for a fact that Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, who was in charge of the investigation into the News of the World, now works for News International. We know that senior officers were wined and dined by senior News of the World executives at the very time, and occasionally on the very day, when they were making key decisions about whether any further investigation should proceed against that organisation. And we know that the News of the World paid police officers for information.
	I say that categorically because, on 11 March 2003, in the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, I asked Rebekah Wade, as she then was—Rebekah Brooks, as she now is—whether she had paid police officers for information. She said:
	“We have paid the police for information in the past.”
	I asked:
	“And will you do it in the future?”
	She replied: “It depends.” Andy Coulson, who was sitting next to her, said:
	“We operate within the code and within the law and if there is a clear public interest then we will.”
	I said:
	“It is illegal for police officers to receive payments.”
	Mr Coulson said:
	“No. I just said, within the law.”
	I do not believe that it is possible to pay police officers “within the law.” That is suborning police officers, it is corruption, and it should stop.
	In April this year, Rebekah Brooks was asked by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs to clarify exactly what she had meant. She replied:
	“As can be seen from the transcript, I was responding to a specific line of questioning on how newspapers get information. My intention was simply to comment generally on the widely-held belief that payments had been made in the past to police officers. If, in doing so, I gave the impression that I had knowledge of any specific cases, I can assure you that this was not my intention.”
	[Laughter.] I see that the Attorney-General himself is smiling.
	Even more worryingly, as we discovered only last night, News International has handed over copies of documents that appear to show that former editor Andy Coulson authorised a series of payments to police officers running into tens of thousands of pounds. That is News International saying, “Yeah but no but yeah but…” . The truth is, however, that News International was doing it, and cannot be allowed to get away with it. I know that the News of the World seems to be hanging Andy Coulson out to dry, but surely the buck stops at the top, and that is the chief executive.

Alan Beith: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Can we also agree that, in our handling of this matter, we must not for a moment prejudice the possibility of successful prosecutions of people who did these things?

Chris Bryant: As I shall try to prove in my next few remarks, I think that that is absolutely essential. My hope is that people who committed criminality at the News of the World will end up going to prison. The last thing I want is for the debate, or any inquiry, to hamper the police investigation or any possible prosecution. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about that.

Julian Huppert: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: I will not, if Members do not mind. Many others wish to speak.
	I know that there are those who argue that there cannot be a public inquiry during an ongoing investigation—and I noted the Prime Minister’s earlier comments, when he seemed to vacillate in relation to when that process could or could not start—but I think they are wrong. Indeed, I consider it vital for the police investigation to be supplemented by a public inquiry. First, some of the issues that need to be addressed may not be criminal, but they do strike at the heart of what an ethical code for the media should look like in this country. Secondly, although I have confidence in the officers who are conducting the Weeting investigation, I fear that the rug could be pulled from under their feet at any moment, and there is no certainty about when their investigations will be completed. By the time they are done, many of those involved may have left the scene or, more worryingly, shredded the evidence—or, of course, discovered selective amnesia.
	That is why it is vital that an inquiry be set up as soon as possible and as soon as practicable, led by a judge with full powers to summon witnesses who must give evidence under oath. Of course the inquiry should not sit in public until the investigations are complete—I hope that that answers the question asked by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith)—but an astute judge can easily manage the relationship between a police investigation and an inquiry, prepare evidence, and secure witnesses without compromising any criminal investigation or prosecution.
	I am confident that the Prime Minister agrees with that. After all—as was mentioned earlier—a year ago today he announced an inquiry, to be led by Sir Peter Gibson, into allegations of the torture of detainees. He appointed two other members to it, and said that he hoped it would start by the end of last year and be completed within a year. Indeed, he expressly pointed
	out that he was setting up the inquiry despite the fact that criminal investigations were still ongoing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), the former Lord Chancellor—and Foreign Secretary, and holder of many other posts besides—has received a letter about the Gibson inquiry which makes the position very clear. It states:
	“The Inquiry has not yet started as we are still awaiting the conclusion of two related police investigations into the Security Service and SIS.”
	None the less, says the letter, “preparatory matters” are in hand. That is precisely what I believe should happen in this case.

Jack Straw: The inquiry into the torture allegations, led by Sir Peter Gibson—himself a former senior judge—has already been able to do a huge amount of work in private, so that if and when the police investigations and any proceedings that follow it are completed, the public part of the inquiry can start immediately.

Chris Bryant: I was going to make that point myself.

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Chris Bryant: I give way to the Attorney-General, in the hope that he will make the same point as well.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman has taken the wind out of my sails in one respect. I was going to agree with him that it was possible to set up an inquiry. However, I am sure he will appreciate that it becomes extremely difficult for an inquiry to take any evidence while criminal proceedings may still be taking place. That is obviously one reason why the Gibson inquiry has not yet begun its work, which it was hoped would start at the end of last year. I certainly note the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the possibility of setting up an inquiry, but it may not make much progress until the criminal investigations are over.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for the way in which he has expressed himself. That is, in fact, a big concession. I think it important for us to make progress, not least because I think that the police themselves would like the sword of Damocles to hang over their necks, so that they know they must proceed and proceed apace. Also, when it comes to an inquiry—especially in this case—they sometimes have to look through the historiography of all the different documentation, and it is important to ensure that that is garnered now, privately.
	I see no reason—other than a lack of will, or fear of what it might unveil—for the Government not to set up an inquiry, establish its terms of reference, and appoint its membership immediately.

Menzies Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: I am anxious not to give way too often, but of course I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Menzies Campbell: I am extremely sympathetic to the position adopted by the hon. Gentleman, but an inquiry of the kind that he suggests would necessarily require any individual whose interest was affected by it to be legally represented, and any such individual would
	have to be advised that he or she need not answer any question that might incriminate him or her. Were criminal proceedings to be completed, there would be no such opportunity for witnesses to refuse to answer questions.

Chris Bryant: I accept the tone of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s remarks, but I think that we have hesitated for too long. It is not that I want to rush to summary justice, but I do want to ensure that justice ends up being done. Documents could be seized now, and material could be tied down. Of course, many elements of the form that the inquiry would take need to be hammered out, and I suggest that the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition could have fruitful discussions to ensure that that is possible.
	I also believe that we need a public inquiry because Parliament—which has conducted its own Select Committee inquiries under the excellent chairmanship of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—has been systematically lied to throughout the process. The list of lies is, I am afraid, endless.
	News International claimed that the phone hacking only started in 2004, but we now know for certain of instances relating to 2003 and 2002. News International claimed that it had run a full internal investigation. It is patently clear that if it did, it hid stuff from the police, and that otherwise it did not. News International claimed that it had always helped the police, but only private civil cases pursued by some brave individuals have forced its hand.
	The police claimed that they had notified all the victims, and that specifically named people were not victims. We now know that not all the victims were contacted, and that some people who had expressly been told that they were not victims were victims. I think that even Assistant Commissioner John Yates now accepts that he has misled Parliament because he briefed The Independent on Sunday that he was furious at the “inadequate” and “unprofessional” research of those beneath him with the result that some of his public statements at the time were at odds with what has subsequently emerged. I am sorry, but leadership does not involve the leader being rude about their staff; it involves them taking responsibility for what they say to Parliament, and if they have misled Parliament, they should resign.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend was an excellent witness when he came and gave evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. However, the point is this: if a witness refuses to appear, it is very difficult to start the process of getting them before a Select Committee. A wider inquiry would have more powers than even a Select Committee.

Chris Bryant: That is my next sentence.
	Many people out in the wider world may not care much whether Parliament is lied to—although I think we should—but this House came into existence to hold what was then the sole power in the land, the Crown and then the Government, to account. Where we now fail often, and sometimes miserably, is in holding the
	other powers in the land to account. We must do that properly from now on, and this is one such instance. We politicians have colluded for far too long with the media: we rely on them, we seek their favour, and we live and we die politically because of what they write and what they show, and sometimes that means we lack the courage or the spine to stand up when wrong has occurred.
	We have let the Press Complaints Commission delude us into thinking that it is genuinely independent and has a bite that everybody is frightened of. Sometimes, we may even have fallen for the threats that have been made when we have spoken out. I know of several Members who have led this debate who have received threats.
	We have let one man have far too great a sway over our national life. At least Berlusconi lives in Italy, but Murdoch is not resident in this country; he does not pay tax here and has never appeared before a Select Committee of this House. No other country would allow one man to garner four national newspapers, to be the second largest broadcaster, and to have a monopoly on sports rights and first-view movies. America, the home of the aggressive entrepreneur, does not allow that, and we should not.
	Of course the proposed takeover of BSkyB should be put on ice while the police investigation is ongoing. The executive and non-executive directors have completely failed in their legal duty to tackle criminality in the company in question, and it must surely be in doubt, at least, whether some of them are fit and proper people to run a media company.
	There are many other questions. Who is paying Glenn Mulcaire’s legal fees now? Is News International paying them? Was Clive Goodman paid off handsomely when he came out of prison? What did Rebekah Wade, Andy Coulson and Les Hinton know, and when did they know it? Why has so much material suddenly appeared in News International’s archives? I do not want to be partisan but there is one remaining question: did the Prime Minister ever ask Andy Coulson what really went on at the News of the World before he appointed him to work, on the taxpayers’ bill, at No. 10 Downing street?
	I hope that those who broke the law at the News of the World and those who covered it up will be brought to justice. I hope the Metropolitan police’s now tarnished reputation will be restored. I hope the victims, especially the ordinary members of the public who were targeted, will get justice as well. I hope we will all get to know the truth, but even more importantly than all of this, I hope that the British media, who for so long have had a worldwide renown for craftsmanship, for tough intelligence and for robust investigative journalism, will rediscover their true vocation: to bring the truth to light truthfully, honestly, and legally. None of that will happen until we establish the whole unvarnished truth, and that, I believe, needs a public inquiry, and it needs it now.

Dominic Grieve: First, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on having secured this debate and thank him, on behalf of the House and on my own behalf, for his courage in raising these matters today? I am absolutely sure that the whole House shares his anxiety, shock and concern about the allegations that have arisen over the
	last couple of days in relation to phone hacking, just as we share his concern over the past allegations of phone hacking and many of the other matters he raised in his powerful speech.
	The suggestion that has now emerged that the phones of Milly Dowler and some of the victims of the 7 July bombings were hacked into must fill any right-thinking person with revulsion, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for the fact that, by virtue of being a Minister of the Crown, I am of necessity rather more circumscribed in what I can say at this Dispatch Box than he is in initiating this debate. I must, of necessity, be quite brief, because many of the issues he raised are of a rather delicate nature in view of the fact that criminal investigations are taking place. I shall come back to that in a moment.
	Phone hacking is a serious crime and, as the House will be aware, the courts have previously imposed custodial sentences in two cases where it has occurred. The current police investigation is following further evidence, and the most recent allegations, to which we have referred, are being considered as part of that investigation.
	It is precisely because of the gravity of the allegations now being made that the Prime Minister announced only a short time ago that there would be a fully independent public inquiry, or set of inquiries, into these matters, but that must not jeopardise any criminal investigation. It is therefore likely that much of the work of the inquiry will be able to start only once the police investigation and any prosecutions that might result from it are concluded. I say that while being mindful of the comments that have been made in the debate that it may be possible to move forward in some areas but not in others. Nevertheless, the burning desire of many people to see finality in this matter and truth to be revealed may take some time because of that, as I am sure the House will appreciate.
	In the meantime, however, the Government will do all they can to progress matters further, such as by consulting on appropriate terms of reference, the composition of an inquiry, and whether there should be one inquiry or more than one. The House must bear in mind the fact that there are some very different issues to be considered here. The hon. Gentleman has raised issues about the conduct of the police, for example, and there are also issues about the conduct of the media. There will therefore doubtless be questions as to whether the consideration of these issues can best be merged into one inquiry or should be addressed separately. I merely highlight that point. There is an intention for there to be proper consultation on how to proceed.

Hazel Blears: The situation now appears to be that News International is investigating News International and the Metropolitan police are investigating the Metropolitan police. For public confidence, is there not a case to be made for at least some kind of independent supervision, perhaps by a different police force, into the Metropolitan police investigation, so that we can be satisfied that we really are getting to the heart of this matter? I have great confidence in the Met, but they will inevitably know some of the characters involved, so having another police force taking a view would be very helpful.

Dominic Grieve: As the right hon. Lady knows, there are mechanisms for inquiries into the conduct of the police to be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and for the IPCC to bring in outside police officers to investigate. As for the News of the World, how it wishes to co-operate with the police in their inquiries is entirely a matter for the News of the World itself. I would not therefore quite join her in saying that the News of the Worldis investigating itself. My understanding is that the News of the Worldhas appointed independent counsel to try to provide—[ Interruption .] No, I am sorry, but what the News of the Worldchooses to do is a matter for it.
	The inquiry that is taking place is a criminal investigation conducted by the police into serious criminal allegations. The question as to how that is responded to by any organisation or individual is a matter for them. I draw neither assurance nor reassurance from the manner in which they choose to do it.

Helen Jones: The Guardian has alleged today that News International knew of the existence of e-mails detailing payments to the police some time ago. If that is the case, will the Attorney-General tell the House whether Mr Coulson was aware of the existence of those e-mails before he resigned as the Prime Minister’s spokesman? If so, did he consult the Prime Minister or any other Minister?

Dominic Grieve: May I respectfully say to the hon. Lady that I am not sure that in my capacity as the Queens’s Attorney-General that is a question to which I would necessarily have the immediate answer? What I can say to her is that a series of criminal investigations are taking place, along with wider inquiry, and the Government are committed, as I have just indicated, to there being an inquiry into the matter. I am sorry to disappoint her but, in any event, I do not think that this is a question that I am in a position to answer.

Kevin Brennan: As a former competition Minister, may I ask the Attorney-General whether, in his view, the Culture Secretary has the power, and always has had the power, to refer the News Corp takeover to the Competition Commission?

Dominic Grieve: Well, may I say to the hon. Gentleman that my understanding—I checked this before the start of the debate—is that my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary did refer the takeover to the Competition Commission?

Jeremy Hunt: I was minded to.

Dominic Grieve: He was minded to. As a result of having done so, a series of assurances were provided, which satisfied him. Thereafter, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman refers that question to my right hon. Friend.

Helen Goodman: Could the Attorney-General just tell the House from whom those assurances were received?

Dominic Grieve: Those assurances were received from News International and were independently validated and referred to Ofcom. May I say to the hon. Member
	for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) that we have to have a little care here? The process by which such a takeover is done follows what is a quasi-judicial procedure, as he is aware. Therefore, in those circumstances, my right hon. Friend’s options in terms of what he had to do were quite severely circumscribed. If the hon. Gentleman feels that that was not properly conducted, I suggest that he raise that with my right hon. Friend directly.

Jack Straw: Would the Attorney-General not accept that now that the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport is in possession of information relating to the behaviour of News Corp which he could not possibly have been in possession of at the time he made his original decision, it must be open to him, as a matter of law, to reconsider his original decision and make the reference that is now sought?

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. Friend is sitting next to me and I am sure he will have noted the comments that the right hon. Gentleman has made. He will therefore be in a position to respond to them, if he so wishes.

Ivan Lewis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, in the middle of a quasi-judicial process, that the assurances have satisfied the Culture Secretary, so why is he in the middle of a consultation process, where he is not meant to have made his mind up yet and is still meant to be open-minded about whether to refer this to the Competition Commission? If the assurances have satisfied him, the consultation is a mockery.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. Friend said that he was minded to accept the assurances. He is sitting next to me so he is in a position to note the strong views that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) have expressed, and I have no doubt that there will be opportunities for him to respond in due course.

Nicholas Soames: The Prime Minister made reference, very correctly, in his answers at Prime Minister’s questions this afternoon to due process. It is clear that he was absolutely correct in making that point. Given that there is clear evidence of serious criminality on the part of some people at News International, would not due process also now include, in any event and without necessarily referring this to the Competition Commission, calling a pause pending further evidence?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly reasonable point. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be in a position to note his comments and reflect carefully on whether the situation has changed in such a fashion. However, I come back to my original point, which was that Ministers of the Crown have to be rather careful about simply changing decisions on the hoof, in view of the fact that they are under legal obligations in respect of the way they take those decisions. With great respect to those who have intervened, whose interventions I am happy to field, the nub of this debate is phone hacking and not, at this stage, the takeover policies of the Government.

Menzies Campbell: I believe that the Attorney-General is right when, as he has done so far, he confines the argument to the question of competition. But do not the Government, as the overall regulating authority, retain a discretion in relation to the management of this industry throughout the United Kingdom? Does not that discretion, for example, allow the Government to give consideration as to whether the directors of any company have been fulfilling their public obligations?

Dominic Grieve: I have no doubt at all that my right hon. and learned Friend is correct in what he says, and those are matters that can be borne in mind by the Government in reviewing the process of this takeover bid and, indeed, the competition laws underlying it.

Keith Vaz: On the payment of police, which is now in the public domain as a result of the release of the e-mails last night, have there been any discussions between the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner about this issue? Is everyone absolutely clear that the payment of police officers is a criminal offence?

Dominic Grieve: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I think that nobody in this House, or anywhere else, is in any doubt that payments to police officers—unless they are payments made in relation to a police officer who may have some separate employment, as happens sometimes—in respect of their duties from some extraneous source is illegal. I await any Member of this House who might tell me about a circumstance to the contrary but, at the moment, I cannot think of one.

Julian Huppert: It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Does the Attorney-General agree that there are real issues not only about poor behaviour by the media, but about public trust in the police? Does he also agree that we have to be sure that the police will investigate people regardless of how powerful they may be and what the consequences may be, and regardless of whether they have been taking illegal payments from them? That is a serious issue and it does need an inquiry.

Dominic Grieve: If that situation were not occurring in this country, the rule of law would be undermined, so I can assure my hon. Friend that if there was any suggestion that differential rules were being applied because some people are powerful and some are weak, that would be a very serious matter.

Frank Dobson: Drawing on his legal knowledge, will the Attorney-General confirm that were News International, with its record of the wrongdoing that it has admitted so far, to apply to run a minicab firm in London, it would not receive a licence? If these are not fit and proper people to run a minicab firm, how can they be a fit and proper outfit to take over a monopoly of a whole television channel?

Dominic Grieve: As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the question of whether any organisation is a fit and proper person to own a broadcasting licence is a matter for Ofcom, and not the
	Secretary of State, under section 3 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. Indeed, the Secretary of State would not be allowed to get involved in that matter.

Oliver Heald: On the previous occasions these matters were debated in the House, there were many concerns that constitutional issues and issues of privilege arose from the potential hacking of MPs’ telephones. Since that time, the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges has considered this issue and produced its 14th report. In framing the inquiries suggested today, would it be possible to take account of the recommendations of that report, which suggest some ways of clarifying this quite difficult situation?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I have no doubt that that factor, along with every single representation made by Members of this House on how they think the inquiry or inquiries should be conducted, can be taken into account.

Chris Bryant: The Attorney-General is absolutely right to say that it is not a matter for the Secretary of State but for Ofcom to decide whether somebody is a fit and proper person, but the whole point is that Ofcom can have no chance to do so unless there is a pause in the Secretary of State’s decision. We need a pause so that Ofcom can come to a conclusion at the end of the police investigation.

Dominic Grieve: It is a matter that I am very happy to go away and check, but I think the hon. Gentleman might be mistaken. I think that in fact Ofcom could intervene at any stage if it were to conclude that somebody was not a fit and proper person to hold a broadcasting licence. As these matters can be complex and I would not wish in any way to mislead the House, I would be happy to go away and check that point and to write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

John Whittingdale: I can confirm that I spoke to the chief executive of Ofcom yesterday, who told me that Ofcom has the power to intervene at any stage if it determines that somebody is no longer a fit and proper person to own a media organisation.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and that confirms what I already thought. Of course, that will not prevent me from going away and triple-checking the matter before I write to the hon. Member for Rhondda about it.
	I am conscious that I ought to make progress and I want to allow time for debate. Because of my rather limited ability to comment on many of the allegations made, I was going to remind the House of some of the history of this matter. The House will be aware that these problems originated in November 2005 when the Metropolitan police were contacted by the royal household with concerns that voicemails relating to members of the royal family had been intercepted—

Chris Bryant: We know all this.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that he knows all this. He might know all of it, but it is worth reminding the House of
	some of the salient facts of the inquiry if we are to have an informed debate. I apologise to him if he feels that it is otiose.
	In those circumstances, the arrests of Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman took place in August 2006 for unlawful interception of phone messages. Searching Mulcaire’s business premises, police uncovered further evidence of interception relating to a number of other individuals not related to the royal household. As the hon. Member for Rhondda, if not the House, will be aware, Mulcaire and Goodman pleaded guilty— Goodman only to the charges relating to the royal family and Mulcaire to five further counts relating to individuals in the public eye—and were sentenced in January 2007 to four months and six months in prison respectively. It is worth bearing in mind that although I know of the hon. Gentleman’s interest in the matter, after January 2007 matters remained essentially quiet until July 2009, when the media reported fresh allegations relating to further cases of phone hacking.
	The Crown Prosecution Service reviewed the material provided to it by the police in order to satisfy itself that appropriate actions had been taken in respect of the material. The CPS was satisfied that the prosecution approach to charging and prosecution was proper and that it would not be appropriate to reopen the cases against Mr Goodman and Mr Mulcaire. It also concluded that any new information should be reported to the police for further investigation.

David Hanson: It has been reported in the news this afternoon that the former Director of Public Prosecutions, the noble Lord Macdonald, has been appointed by News International to advise it on its dealings with the police at this time. Does the Attorney-General think that that is appropriate, and has he any thoughts from the Government on that development?

Dominic Grieve: As I am not sure that what the right hon. Gentleman says is correct, I am not minded to comment on it. My understanding of the matter was that Lord Macdonald had been appointed by News of the World to help with the disclosure process to the police. That is a matter for Lord Macdonald in accordance with the professional code of conduct of the Bar. [ Interruption. ] I can assure the House that I do not think the notes I have just received are necessarily of particular help to me in answering the right hon. Gentleman’s question. He raises a perfectly legitimate point, but without knowing—which I do not—the circumstances in which Lord Macdonald might or might not be involved with advising News of the World in this matter, I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment further.

David Hanson: Will the Attorney-General give me an assurance that he will look into this matter when he leaves the Chamber today? I, as the then Police Minister, made comments in good faith on 14 July of that year about the DPP’s approach to the case. It is important that there should be clarity on all issues when we consider such matters.

Dominic Grieve: I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says and I am happy to go away and consider it. As I have said, a lawyer’s involvement in
	any matter must ultimately be reconciled with the professional code of conduct and the question of whether any conflict of interest exists. Beyond that, I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman when I have had an opportunity to consider the matter.
	Before we were diverted by the subject of Lord Macdonald, I was mentioning the fact that the media reported fresh allegations in 2009. In November 2010, the Metropolitan police approached the CPS for advice about the prospects of bringing further charges. Owing to the non-co-operation of witnesses and the lack of further evidence, however, criminal charges could not be brought. The Metropolitan police asked the News of the World for any new material in January of this year.
	Following developments in the civil courts, the CPS then agreed to review everything the Metropolitan police have in their possession to ascertain whether there was any material that could form evidence in any future criminal prosecution for phone hacking. On 26 January this year, in view of the seriousness of the allegations and the fresh information that had come to light, the Metropolitan police announced a new investigation. That investigation, Operation Weeting, is led by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers of the specialist crime directorate, which is an entirely different unit within the Metropolitan police from that which carried out the original investigation in 2006.
	The Metropolitan police now have 45 experienced police officers working on the case, which illustrates how seriously they are taking this new investigation. It is precisely because of the new investigation that new information is progressively coming to light that is the subject on which the debate requested by the hon. Member for Rhondda has been based. As the Prime Minister has said, the police must be allowed to pursue their criminal investigation in the most vigorous way they can to get to the truth. I simply say to the House that that is one reason why Ministers will not be making pronouncements in detail on some of the matters that the hon. Member for Rhondda has raised.
	It is right to point out, as the hon. Gentleman has done, that quite a large number of inquiries have been taking place. We have a CPS review, we have the police pursuing their investigations, we have had a number of activities by the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges and we have also had work done by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. I hope that the House may derive from all that some reassurance that the issues surrounding these allegations are being taken very seriously. I take them very seriously and it is essential that no stone should be left unturned in ensuring that anyone who is guilty of any criminal offence is brought to justice and that the public are provided, at the end of day, with the truth about has happened and about the lessons needed to ensure that there is no repetition in future.

Michael McCann: May I ask the Attorney-General a simple question? Why did it take so long for these issues to be taken seriously?

Dominic Grieve: May I make a couple of remarks? This Government have been in office since May 2010 and these matters clearly originated some time prior to that. Moreover, I simply point out that the issues reviving
	in the way they have date back to just before Christmas. The world is not a perfect place, but I note the rather fair comment that the hon. Member for Rhondda made in opening the debate. The House may need to be judgmental about itself in a number of ways, but I rather doubt that it should be selective in how it passes those judgments. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the Government have acted properly in the past few months in responding to the way this story has developed. I am also satisfied, and I hope the House is satisfied, that the Prime Minister has responded properly to the latest allegations that have emerged today.

Helen Jones: The Attorney-General is telling the House that we must await the outcome of the inquiries into these allegations, and I absolutely accept that, but if that is the case why are the Government going ahead with allowing News Corp to take over BSkyB when there are allegations of serious wrongdoing and criminality against it? Surely the Government should wait for the outcome of the inquiries before they proceed.

Dominic Grieve: At the risk of repeating what I said earlier, the takeover process is a legal one and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport will, I have no doubt, receive legal advice about the proper way to conduct that process. I also have no doubt that he is listening and will listen to the representations being made today and the anxieties being expressed on the matter. Beyond that it would not be proper for me to go.

Chi Onwurah: The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) said that Ofcom can intervene at any point with regard to the fit-and-proper-person test, but will the Attorney-General give guidance on whether, in applying that test, Ofcom should take into account the ongoing allegations about phone hacking? If it cannot take those allegations into account, will he give guidance on how it should regard the phone hacking issue?

Dominic Grieve: If Ofcom’s role is entirely independent of Government, I do not think I am the person who should provide it with my opinion on the matter, or the notion of independence is going to be rather lost.

John Hemming: rose —

Dominic Grieve: I really wish to bring my remarks to an end.

Gerald Kaufman: Will the Attorney-General give way?

Dominic Grieve: Yes, of course I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Gerald Kaufman: The Attorney-General says that the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport will no doubt receive legal advice, but does he agree that his right hon. Friend is not bound by that legal advice and that as the Secretary of State he has the right, in his quasi-judicial position, to make his own decisions? There is a book about this if the Attorney-General wants to read it.

Dominic Grieve: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is very well advised and will note the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. In order to be equal in my approach, I now give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming).

John Hemming: In the interests of preventing this from happening again, I should like to know whether the Attorney-General shares my concern that the editors code contains no demand for people to know the basis on which information that has been bought has been obtained or to ensure that it has not been obtained through criminal acts.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point that can no doubt be looked at by editors and by the Press Complaints Commission.
	I wish to conclude simply by saying that these allegations are very grave. In my role as Attorney-General, I have the rather curious title of “guardian of the public interest”, and I have absolutely no doubt that the public interest will be served only if these matters are fully inquired into and if those who have committed or are alleged to have committed criminal offences and are seen to have a prima facie case against them are brought to justice. That will require some forbearance on the part of the House in its desire to see a conclusion to this matter and I ask the House to bear that in mind. With that, I simply reiterate my thanks to the hon. Member for Rhondda for the manner in which he presented the debate.

Yvette Cooper: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on securing today’s very serious debate and on his forensic analysis of the problems and the work that he and others in Parliament have done to pursue this issue with vigour. The whole House will want to pay tribute to their work and determination.
	The events of the past few days have sent shockwaves across the nation. With every hour that passes we hear more deeply disturbing allegations such as the claims that private investigators paid by the News of the World hacked into the phone of the missing 13-year-old Milly Dowler and erased some of her messages in the search for a story, thereby giving her parents false hope. There are also claims that other bereaved parents, including the Chapman family, Sara Payne and Graham Foulkes, were similarly targeted. We will not know the truth behind each of those allegations until the criminal investigation is complete, and of course we in this House must not prejudice the investigations or any potential trials that must take place, but we can say, very loudly and clearly, that the very idea of targeting victims and their families in their darkest hour is shameful, sickening and cruel.
	This is not just about invasion of privacy: it is about the violation of victims and their families at a time when we know that there are doubts about the way in which our society and our justice system more widely treat victims and their families. That is why people across the country are rightly angry and want answers. For a start, this means that the current Met criminal investigation needs to be forensic and furious in the pursuit of truth. People want to know the truth about what happened. They want to know how it could have
	been allowed to happen in modern newspapers and stay hidden for so long. They want to know how this could have been tolerated and how people could have turned a blind eye. They want to know whether journalists interfered with or put at risk criminal investigations, how victims and their families could ever have been so appallingly treated and, of course, why these allegations were not sufficiently investigated at an earlier stage.

Nicholas Soames: May I make to the right hon. Lady the same point as I made to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)? The 2006 report of the Information Commissioner was quite clearly a harbinger of what was going on, but no one in the Government—or, indeed, in the House—appeared to pay any attention to it. Surely, the lesson is that this rot has been in the system for a very long time, and it is terrible that the House did nothing about it.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right to say those words to all Members of the House, and to all members of this and former Governments, too. I have talked to Opposition Members, who have made it clear that the inquiry for which we are calling must look at all historical issues. He is right that there were warning signs. As I did at the beginning of my speech, I pay tribute to the fact that some parliamentarians picked this up, but we all need to look at what is happening and why too many people turned a blind eye to the problem, or did not focus on the sheer horror of what was happening for too long.
	Let us be clear about the current criminal investigation. We have seen some vigour and rigour in recent months, which must continue, as the investigation needs to look into the heart of the darkness. Where criminal activity has been committed, it must pursue robust prosecutions and deliver justice too. We must not jeopardise those investigations with what we say in this debate or with the details of any inquiry. It is for the police and the courts to determine the veracity of the allegations, but it is for Parliament to make sure that they can do so, that they are doing so, and to address the wider issues.

Gloria De Piero: Now that we know that members of the public have been targeted, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that they receive special support? If they require legal aid, the Lord Chancellor should ensure that they receive it.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point, because many people who might be troubled might not be in the position of some individuals who have pursued civil actions to seek legal advice. It is important that that is looked at urgently, both by the Ministry of Justice and by the Attorney-General.
	We need to know urgently whether the actions of journalists and private investigators have interfered with police investigations, not just in the cases of Milly Dowler and of Daniel Morgan but in other cases, too. Alongside the Met inquiry, in advance of the wider public inquiry, we ask the Attorney-General, the CPS and chief constables to review other high-profile cases across the country that have provoked media attention. It is important that people are reassured that those investigations have not been interfered with, or are told whether further criminal investigations need to take place in a wider range of cases than those that are being pursued by the Met.

Hazel Blears: I shall put the same point to my right hon. Friend as I put to the Attorney-General. The Met is investigating previous unsatisfactory investigations by the Metropolitan police, so, despite our confidence in the investigators, does she agree that if the public are to share our confidence independent police forces should perhaps supervise some of the investigations?

Yvette Cooper: I want to come on to the police investigation. The investigation to which the Attorney-General referred is not looking at what happened in the first investigation—it is pursuing criminal investigations. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a further question about what happened in that first investigation, and who needs to look at that and undertake a searching inquiry into the nature of the problems that arose. There is a role, for example, for the Independent Police Complaints Commission to make sure that there is a proper, independent investigation.
	Members on both sides of the House agree that there are wider issues at stake and that there is a case for a full public inquiry. There are wider questions about the culture that could allow the alleged events at the News of the Worldto take place and to be tolerated; about wider media practices and ethical conduct; and about the effectiveness of the current Press Complaints Commission arrangements. Members on both sides of the House have a responsibility to safeguard the right of our media to report freely on all aspects of society, to hold Members of Parliament to account, and to scrutinise in detail the work that we do in the public interest. The vast majority of journalists and editors are committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) said, alongside freedom comes responsibility.
	Press self-regulation is important, but the press must make it work. In January, the editor of the Financial Times accused the Press Complaints Commission of being
	“supine at best in its response to the hacking scandal.”
	The PCC’s record on investigating phone hacking has indeed been one of failure.

Greg Mulholland: The right hon. Lady is quite right—a free press is the cornerstone of democracy, but democracy relies on the press being accountable. The system of regulation has failed utterly. Is it not time for a new one, and will she support that proposal?

Yvette Cooper: That was the point I was making. The existing PCC arrangements have not delivered. The press should try to make self-regulation work, and that issue should be dealt with as part of the inquiry, because it is important to restore public confidence across the country in the way in which the media operate, in their independence and in their trustworthiness.
	There are questions, too, for the police. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson stated yesterday:
	“It is inevitable...that questions will be asked about the parameters of the original investigation but also more widely about the regulatory role of the Press Complaints Commission and others.”
	He is right, and there are three questions to answer. First, were payments made by the media to individual officers—which is clearly illegal and corrupt? Secondly, was there a wider relationship between the newspapers and police? Thirdly, why did the first investigation not reach the truth and uncover what was happening?
	I spoke to the commissioner today. He told me that he believes that a public inquiry is not only inevitable but it is the right thing to do. He said that the police should be held to account. It is important for the inquiry to cover those issues. Ministers should reflect on the specialist role that police officers, the IPCC and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary will play in ensuring a proper investigation.

Alun Michael: Did the Metropolitan Police Commissioner indicate whether he had made a referral to the IPCC, or has that not happened yet?

Yvette Cooper: As I understand it from my conversation with the commissioner this morning, the Met has indeed made a referral to the IPCC about the allegations that police officers received payments. That has been discussed with the IPCC, whose conclusion—again, as I understand it from my conversation this morning—is that the current investigation by the Met should continue, but it is keeping that under review. It is important that we have that independent investigation. There is a wider question about safeguards in the system on which we will want to reflect, given that individual investigations may go awry or may not reach the conclusions that they need to reach. I do not think that that role will be fulfilled by the police and crime commissioners proposed by the Government, because that would create greater risks in such cases in future.
	The police do vital and excellent work, solving crimes, bringing offenders to justice, and supporting families of murder victims and others. It is important that that work is not undermined or discredited as the result of any lack of transparency over the phone-hacking revelations. We must recognise that any areas where things have gone wrong must be put right.
	Before turning to the case for the public inquiry and what it should consider, may I respond briefly to the points made by the Attorney-General about whether a referral should be made to the Competition Commission? He will know that we have continually called for such a referral, as we believe that it is the right thing to do. I hope that the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, who is in the Chamber, and the Attorney-General will reflect carefully on the points that have been made by Members on both sides of the House about the flexibility within the law to look at the issue again, and recognise the importance of the need, for which we have argued from the beginning, for referral to the Competition Commission. I would simply say that judgments must be fair, but it is also important that they are seen to be fair and that the public have confidence in them.
	The Prime Minister agreed today that there should be an inquiry or inquiries into these issues. At the end of the Attorney-General’s speech, he referred to a number of inquiries that were already under way and tried to give us some assurance that that meant that these matters were being taken seriously. He knows, however, that the number of inquiries that have taken place or are taking place now gives no such reassurance. Quite the opposite is true because so many inquiries have not got to the truth in the past. Whether those were inquiries by the PCC or by parliamentary Committees, they were not able to get to the bottom of the truth about what had been happening.

Dominic Grieve: I understand the right hon. Lady’s point, but I think she slightly misunderstood the point I was making. I was referring not just to that, but to the Prime Minister’s statement today. There is a full appreciation, which has grown over time, that this is a serious issue—[Interruption.] Steps have been taken to try to deal with it. I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition that if his Government had been troubled when they were in office, they could have taken steps between 2006 and 2010 to do something about this. Throughout my comments today I avoided making any criticism of the way the previous Government acted, and I think his remarks from a sedentary position are entirely uncalled for.

Yvette Cooper: I respect the spirit in which the Attorney-General made his speech, but warn him against any complacency about the number of inquiries solving the issue. The key is whether the overall public inquiry that looks into the matter has sufficient powers and the right remit and can truly get to the heart of what has been happening.

Keith Vaz: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Home Affairs Committee have been conducting inquiries they, by their nature and the nature of the Select Committee system, monitor Departments. What is needed is an over-arching inquiry. I have discussed informally with the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee the possibility of setting up a joint inquiry between our two Committees, but that will not be enough. There needs to be something that covers all bases dealing with this very important subject.

Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend is exactly right. His Committee has done some extremely important work in pursuing these issues and will, I know, continue to do so.
	It is important that the inquiry has the power not only to compel witnesses, but to get to the heart of the information, get detailed answers and examine a range of interconnecting issues that are at stake. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has set out some of the areas that we believe the inquiry must cover—for example, the unlawful practices, including phone hacking, that appear to have been prevalent in sections of the newspaper industry, the ethical conduct and standards of the industry, the nature of robust and credible regulation, and the relationship between the police and the newspaper industry.
	We have asked the Government to decide now the nature and scope of the inquiry and to choose now who should take that forward to get the team established in place as soon as is practical, without waiting for criminal proceedings to be complete, as the Gibson inquiry has done. I welcomed the Government’s agreement that it is possible to consider whether elements can be examined in advance of the criminal investigation being completed. Nobody wants to put that criminal investigation at risk, but equally it seems at first sight that some elements could be investigated and explored at an earlier stage, rather than having to wait until the end of the process. We need to know which Minister will be in charge of those discussions and considerations.

Angela Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever happens in the next few days, including the potential resignation
	of the chief executive of News International, nothing can undermine the need for a public inquiry? We must have that inquiry, whatever happens.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right, because of the wide ranging nature of the issue and the importance of restoring confidence. It is important that we know which Minister will be in charge of making those decisions and setting up the inquiry. We had assumed that it would be the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. There is clearly a question about whether the latter is able to do that alongside his other responsibilities on the wider issues in relation to the Competition Commission.
	The Attorney-General needs to consider the Prime Minister’s role. The Prime Minister’s judgment has already been called into question by his appointment of Andy Coulson as his media adviser, despite the fact that there had long been allegations of illegal practices and wrongdoing at the News of the World on his watch. Today it is alleged that e-mails expose direct payments from the News of the World to the police that were known about by Andy Coulson. There are also claims circulating today that Andy Coulson was told about or knew about these e-mails and that this is why he resigned in January. If so, that is extremely serious.
	The e-mails were passed to the Metropolitan police only on 20 June, even though the inquiry and the full co-operation of News International had supposedly started on 26 January. Was Andy Coulson aware of this, and did he tell the Prime Minister or anyone else in No. 10 about those e-mails? If he did, it would mean that the Prime Minister and members of the Government were aware of the information before the Metropolitan police. It is important that the Prime Minister provides some immediate answers in response to this question.
	The Attorney-General and the Cabinet Secretary should advise whether the Prime Minister should now remove himself from any decision making about the public inquiry. It is clear that the conduct of one of the Prime Minister’s employees and colleagues is a substantive issue not just for the criminal investigation but for the wider inquiry. The inquiry needs to be impartial and to inspire confidence. It cannot be compromised by any perception of partiality in its establishment by the Ministers who are in charge of the decisions.
	This inquiry is so important because it goes to the heart of our democracy and our society. The inquiry is not about a row between Parliament and the media, or Parliament and the police; quite the reverse. It is exactly because the media—the fourth estate— play such a vital role in our democracy that they must be accountable, with clear and ethical standards. It is exactly because independent, impartial policing is so essential to our democracy that the police must be accountable and transparent if things go wrong. It is the result of work in Parliament and by parliamentarians that we have secured the principle of a public inquiry now.
	Parliament must press further, not just to seek truth, not just to restore the effectiveness and credibility of parts of the newspaper industry, not just to get justice, but to say on behalf of everyone in this country, “We will not stand for the shameful and cruel practices that we have seen. We will stand as a Parliament against these shocking practices. It is not the kind of country we want to be. We will stand on the side of those—especially
	the crime victims and their families—who should never have found themselves dragged into this terrible debate today. We must make sure this never happens again.”

Mr Speaker: Order. The seven-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches starts now.

John Whittingdale: I rise to speak in the debate with considerable sadness. I am a passionate believer in the freedom of the press, but like other freedoms, that freedom must be exercised within the rule of law. Many of us here were appalled when we discovered, in the course of the expenses scandal, what a small number of Members of the House had done. They were rightly prosecuted and several have now gone to prison, but that scandal tainted all of us. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) referred to the fact that journalists throughout the country are equally appalled at the revelations that have come out about the activities of some members of their profession, and they too feel that they have been tainted by them.
	The latest revelations mark a low point in the saga of phone hacking, but I fear they do not mark the end point. There are likely to be further revelations still to come. The matter was first looked at by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in early 2007, following the conviction of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire. At that time I asked the chairman of News International, Les Hinton:
	“You carried out a full, rigorous internal inquiry, and you are absolutely convinced that Clive Goodman was the only person who knew what was going on?”
	Mr Hinton replied:
	“Yes, we have and believe he was the only person, but that investigation, under the new editor, continues.”
	The Committee produced a report which stated:
	“We note the assurances of the Chairman of News International that Mr Goodman was acting wholly without authorisation and that Mr Coulson had no knowledge of what was going on.”
	In July 2009 The Guardian reported that News International had paid Gordon Taylor and two others more than £1 million because their phones had been hacked, which led the Committee to believe that we might have been misled. We therefore decided to reopen our inquiry. Early in those inquiries The Guardianproduced two pieces of evidence: one was the so-called “for Neville” e-mail, which contained the transcripts of 35 voicemail messages between Gordon Taylor and his legal adviser; the other was a contract between Glenn Mulcaire, under a false name, and Greg Miskiw, a senior executive at the News of the World. We felt strongly that both pieces of evidence suggested that Clive Goodman was not the rogue reporter that we had been told about.
	The Committee took evidence from Tom Crone, the legal manager of News Group Newspapers, Colin Myler, the editor of the News of the World, Stuart Kuttner, the newspaper’s managing editor, and Andy Coulson, its former editor. We asked whether Rebekah Brooks would appear before us, but she said she had had no involvement with the News of the World when the phone hacking was taking place, which was the case, as she was editor of The Sun at the time. We asked Neville Thurlbeck to appear but were told that doing so would reveal what he looked like, and so compromise his position as an
	investigative reporter. We asked that Ross Hindley, the junior reporter who had transcribed the voicemail intercepts, should appear, but were told that he could not come because he was in Peru. We were told that there had been a thorough investigation by outside solicitors and that no evidence had been unearthed to suggest that phone hacking had been any more widespread.

Paul Farrelly: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one important issue that a public inquiry will have to navigate is the fact that no one so far has been cross-examined in either a criminal or a civil court, as settlements have been reached in all the civil cases? Indeed, in the Gordon Taylor case the court ordered the files to be sealed, and Sienna Miller is the latest victim of phone hacking to settle. As a result, we have not yet got to the bottom of this.

John Whittingdale: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman—indeed, I can call him my hon. Friend, as a fellow member of the Select Committee. I think that an inquiry should be able to investigate any documents that are relevant to this matter.
	During the Committee’s inquiry I again spoke with Mr Crone, the legal manager, and asked:
	“As far as you know, no information regarding those other individuals ever reached the News of the World?”
	He replied:
	“I have seen no evidence of that.”
	Mr Coulson said in evidence that during his editorship he
	“never condoned the use of ’phone hacking and nor do I have any recollection of incidences where ’phone hacking took place. My instructions to the staff were clear: we did not use subterfuge of any kind unless there was a clear public interest in doing so; they were to work within the PCC Code at all times.”
	The Committee stated in its report:
	“Evidence we have seen makes it inconceivable that no-one else at the News of the World, bar Clive Goodman, knew about the phone-hacking…The newspaper’s enquiries were far from ‘full’ or ‘rigorous’, as we—and the PCC—had been assured. Throughout our inquiry, too, we have been struck by the collective amnesia afflicting witnesses from the News of the World.”
	Since that time there have been a stream of revelations, and it has become increasingly clear that phone hacking was widespread and involved a large number of people. Most of that evidence, certainly in the early stages, came from the material seized by the police from Glenn Mulcaire, which they were required to divulge only when the civil cases came to court and they were asked to do so by the solicitors acting on behalf of the people bringing civil cases. The key point is that almost every piece of evidence we are now learning about has been in the possession of the police since 2006. That raises very serious questions about why it was not pursued, and why we were told repeatedly that the evidence did not exist, and why the police assured us that there was no evidence to suggest that the investigation should go any further.
	All phone hacking is wrong and illegal, but there is no question but that the revelations that the phone of Milly Dowler was hacked, if that was the case, represent a new low, as do the subsequent revelations about the victims of the 7 July bombings and their families, and other murdered children. The truth of these matters is still not wholly clear and there is an ongoing police
	investigation, which nothing must be allowed to impede. We need to know whether the allegations are true—and if they are, who commissioned those phone hacks and who else knew about it.
	There is a swirl of rumour about who might or might not have had their phones hacked, and there are also rumours about other newspapers. I must say that I suspect that, just as Clive Goodman was not a rogue reporter, so the News of the World was not a rogue newspaper. We need to get to the full facts. There needs to be a full inquiry, and the police, the Press Complaints Commission and the press as a whole need to be held to account.

Tom Watson: News International’s decision to throw Andy Coulson to the wolves last night was an attempt to divert us from an even bigger wrong: that company was systematically, ruthlessly, and without conscience or morality, interfering with the phones of victims of murder, cruelly deceiving their families and impeding the search for justice. Glenn Mulcaire has accepted some share of responsibility for this moral sickness, but the editor in charge of him refuses to take responsibility. Indeed, far from accepting blame, she has—amazingly—put herself in charge of the investigation into the wrongdoing; the chief suspect has become the chief investigator.

Bob Stewart: I, like many Members of the House, have run an organisation. Sometimes in organisations things go wrong and there are faults that might not be the fault of the person running it—but it is certainly their responsibility, and responsibility goes right to the top. Rebekah Brooks is responsible for what has happened. If she does not resign, the person above her should understand that it is his responsibility to—

Mr Speaker: Order. I respect the hon. Gentleman’s sincerity and integrity, but interventions must be brief from now on, as otherwise we will find it very difficult to make progress.

Tom Watson: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman, and thank him for his brave contribution. I believe that Rebekah Brooks was not only responsible for wrongdoing, but knew about it. The evidence in the paper that she edited contradicts her statements that she knew nothing about unlawful behaviour. Take the edition that she edited on 14 April 2002, which reveals that the News of the World had information from Milly Dowler’s phone. In other words, they knew about the messages on her phone. They wrote that there was
	“left a message on her voicemail after the 13-year-old vanished at 4pm on March 21. On march 27th, six days after Milly went missing in Walton-on-Thames, Surrey, the employment agency appears to have phoned her mobile.”
	It was a central part of the paper’s story that it had evidence from a telephone—evidence that it could get only from breaking into that phone at the time. The story that Rebekah Brooks was far from the Dowler events is simply not believable when her own newspaper wrote about the information that it had gained from that phone.
	I want to inform the House of further evidence that suggests that Rebekah Brooks knew of the unlawful tactics of the News of the World as early as 2002, despite all her denials yesterday.
	Rebekah Brooks was present at a meeting with Scotland Yard when police officers pursuing a murder investigation provided her with evidence that her newspaper was interfering with the pursuit of justice. They gave her the name of another senior executive at News International, Alex Marunchak. At the meeting, which included Dick Fedorcio of the Metropolitan police, she was told that News of the World staff were guilty of interference and party to using unlawful means to attempt to discredit a police officer and his wife.
	Rebekah Brooks was told of actions by people whom she paid to expose and discredit David Cook and his wife Jackie Haines, so that Mr Cook would be prevented from completing an investigation into a murder. News International was paying people to interfere with police officers and was doing so on behalf of known criminals. We know now that News International had entered the criminal underworld.
	Rebekah Brooks cannot deny being present at that meeting when the actions of people whom she paid were exposed. She cannot deny now being warned that under her auspices unlawful tactics were used for the purpose of interfering with the pursuit of justice. She cannot deny that one of her staff, Alex Marunchak, was named and involved. She cannot deny either that she was told by the police that her own paper was using unlawful tactics, in that case to help one of her lawbreaking investigators. This, in my view, shows that her culpability goes beyond taking the blame as head of the organisation; it is about direct knowledge of unlawful behaviour. Was Mr Marunchak dismissed? No. He was promoted.

Steve Rotheram: Twenty-two years ago, my city warned anyone who would listen that scurrilous rags such as The Sun were out of control, after it printed blatant lies about the Hillsborough disaster. News International lied to the country in 1989, and it still seems to be lying to the country now. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should ensure that it does not take 22 years to put right this latest wrong?

Tom Watson: I agree, and, just as the people of Liverpool no longer buy The Sun, thousands of people have joined a Facebook group to boycott—along with advertisers—the News of the World. I am sure that people watching this debate will consider that fact.

Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend will be aware that there are people currently serving prison sentences in this country, none more so than Tommy Sheridan, the former MSP. That successful prosecution was based on evidence from Andrew Coulson, but it now seems that the jury did not get all the e-mails that were pertinent to the case. If that is true, surely the appropriate authorities should revisit the case and ask Mr Coulson whether that evidence and that information were withheld intentionally.

Tom Watson: I cannot answer my hon. Friend fully, because of the time restrictions. I will reveal more on the issue later in the week, except to say that I think the Sheridan trial was unsound and may need revisiting.
	Families who trusted Rebekah Brooks when she said she felt their pain, families who have been cruelly let down by the intrusion into private grief and the callous exploitation of their suffering—anguished families,
	indeed—are now being tortured yet again by the knowledge that in the world of Rebekah Brooks no one can grieve in private, no one can cry their tears without surveillance, no one can talk to their friends without their private feelings becoming public property.
	The whole board of News International is responsible for the company. Mr James Murdoch should be suspended from office while the police investigate what I believe is his personal authorisation to plan a cover-up of this scandal. Mr James Murdoch is the chairman. It is clear now that he personally, without board approval, authorised money to be paid by his company to silence people who had been hacked, and to cover up criminal behaviour within his organisation. That is nothing short of an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
	There is now no escape for News International from the responsibility for systematically breaking the law, but there is also now no escape from the fact that it sought to pervert the course of justice.
	I believe that the police should also ask Mr James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks whether they know of the attempted destruction of data at the HCL storage facility in Chennai, India. Mr James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks now have to accept their culpability, and they will have to face the full force of the law.
	Their behaviour towards the most vulnerable, their knowledge of lawbreaking and their failure to act, their links with the criminal underworld and their attempt to cover up lawbreaking and to pay for people’s silence, tell the world all we need to know about their character—that they are not fit and proper persons to control any part of the media in this country.

Simon Hughes: I was asked in 2006 to collaborate with the first police inquiry, because I had been one of the victims of hacking. I collaborated and gave evidence, and I was very pleased that it resulted in the conviction of two people for clearly illegal activity. I am collaborating currently with the police in their second inquiry, which is of course ranging much more widely.
	I have said this in the House before, but I am clear that from the beginning the issue has not been principally about whether politicians, the royal family or celebrities have had their phones hacked, but about whether ordinary members of the public have had their privacy invaded by people much more powerful than them. It has been about people who have not had the opportunity to speak for themselves or to command the airwaves in return.
	I thought it bad enough that families, friends and constituents had had their information picked over, and I know from experience that it severely affected the career and health of one friend, but we now realise that it was much worse than that, because it has been about not just ordinary members of the public doing ordinary jobs, but people at their most vulnerable and traumatised. They have been exploited purely in the interests of a media story, so I, like every Member, join in the expressions of revulsion by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all colleagues. It is the most unacceptable of behaviour.
	Given the acceptance that there should be inquiries, we should make clear the questions that we need the
	public inquiries to answer. If there is a robbery, three sorts of people are involved: the people who are visibly involved; the people who commission the robbery and benefit from the proceeds, although we never see them; and the people who know all about the robbery but try to pretend that they do not.
	The inquiries and the police investigations must go to all those people, because it is no good picking off the small guys, the guys who are pushed out to do the jobs, when the decisions have been clearly taken by the big guys—or in this case, the big girls. We need to ensure, therefore, that we encourage the police to be absolutely ruthless in investigating everything that may have happened, and to give our full support to the new commissioner and his team now carrying out the inquiry.
	There is an obvious second set of questions. The Metropolitan police did not do a good job in 2006, and they probably did not start back in 2002, when the issues appear to have come to light. When the investigation took place into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, institutional racism was discovered in the Met police. I am not alleging that there is institutional corruption in the Met police, but it has been widely known for years that there has been regular corruption on such issues in the Met police and in other police forces.
	The very fact that the Information Commissioner produced a report in 2006, instancing how often and in how many papers such practices were going on, makes it absolutely clear that there has been an endemic problem in policing, with payments involving the police and people acting illegally in order to get stories, and with collaboration outside the public gaze. That is why I do not think it would be appropriate for another police service to investigate the Met, although I heard what the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) said in her intervention. There has to be an inquiry that is absolutely free of the police service, and is led by somebody who is entirely independent. In my view, that person has to be a judge. The inquiry must have the power to call all evidence and to require people to attend and answer questions, and it must be completely fearless.
	I accept the argument that it may be possible for an inquiry to begin now with activities that will not compromise the police investigation. I am also absolutely clear that the police must be allowed to get on and complete their investigation, produce the evidence and go to the Crown Prosecution Service, so that charges can be brought and prosecutions made.

Alun Michael: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that although the public investigative processes that he is describing are absolutely necessary, we have a body that has the professional competence and capacity to investigate police actions? It is right that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has today referred certain matters to that body.

Simon Hughes: Yes, that body exists and I do not cavil at its independence. However, given the extent of the clear corruption in this case, the length of time over which these practices have continued and the huge public interest, it is logical to have the sort of inquiry that was held on the Stephen Lawrence case and others, which goes beyond the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Margot James: Given what we have been told about the extent of the police and media connection, and about the way in which many stories appeared in the press with incredible speed the very next day, thanks to those tip-offs, does my right hon. Friend agree that the public will be satisfied with nothing less than what he is recommending?

Simon Hughes: I agree.
	Another issue is the future of the companies involved and their interrelationship. I have no criticism of the way in which the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has carried out his inquiries into competition in the British media industry. However, as the shadow Home Secretary and others have implied, there is a separate issue, which is about “fit and proper persons”. That is to do with the regulation of the media. Ofcom, the regulator, is based in my constituency. The rules are clear and I have checked them with Ofcom today. Under section 3(3) of the Broadcasting Act 1990, Ofcom
	“shall not grant a licence to any person unless they are satisfied that he is a fit and proper person to hold it; and…shall do all that they can to secure that, if they cease to be so satisfied in the case of any person holding a licence, that person does not remain the holder of the licence”.
	Ofcom therefore has an ongoing duty to be satisfied that those at BSkyB are fit and proper persons to hold a broadcasting licence.
	For the avoidance of doubt, I think it is appropriate for Ofcom to be formally requested to consider whether BSkyB is a company whose directors will be fit and proper people. As the local Member of Parliament for Ofcom, I intend to go through its door and make that request in person before the end of the week. It needs to know that this House, which owes the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) a great tribute for initiating this debate, wants that matter to be considered at the earliest possible opportunity.
	Ofcom will, of course, not prejudge a criminal trial. It cannot come to a conclusion that somebody is guilty of an offence before they are found to be guilty. However, it has a statutory obligation to consider at any time who is appropriate to hold a broadcasting licence. The message from this House must be that we want it actively to consider that obligation. If it comes to the view that the future owners of BSkyB are inappropriate, it should rule accordingly, which would mean that the BSkyB merger could not go ahead.

Alan Johnson: I will not detain the House for long. I put my name down to speak because I believe that we need to persuade those on the Treasury Bench to have a public inquiry, and I wanted to give my perspective. The Attorney-General was his usual assured and eloquent self on that issue. He got into trouble on the two issues on which the Government have been wrong today. The Prime Minister was right to say that we would have public inquiries. He was right to put that in the plural, because we may need several inquiries. He was wrong to say that Rebekah Brooks should not resign—[Hon. Members: “He didn’t say that.”] No, he did not say that, but when Hansard is published tomorrow, people will be able to read between the lines. The Prime Minister is also wrong to go ahead with the takeover of BSkyB.
	I am conscious of the points that the Attorney-General made. I was a Home Secretary in the previous Administration. In looking for a public inquiry, we have to explain to the House a little about the atmospherics when the previous Administration took decisions, and did not take decisions, relating to this case. I am conscious that of the four Home Secretaries between 2005 and 2010, I am the only one still in this House. I wish I could give an eloquent explanation of how brilliant I was as a Home Secretary that would give people an insight into why I did not act, but I cannot.
	What I can say is that in July 2009, when the revelation was made about Gordon Taylor on the front page of The Guardian, we looked at the matter carefully. Like all good Secretaries of State, I got another Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), to answer the urgent question, while I did other things. There was not much that we could do beyond asking the Metropolitan Police Commissioner John Yates and others whether there was anything behind the story. The atmospherics—the public mood and the mood in Parliament—said that this was an obsession of one newspaper. While we are criticising the press, let us praise The Guardian for doggedly staying on this case, despite all the attempts to stop it. We might also mention The New York Times in dispatches. We were told that this was the obsession of one newspaper and a few Back-Benchers. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) for continuing to be irritants on this issue.
	What was the view in the Home Office at the time? We looked seriously at whether to have an independent review of the Metropolitan police investigation. The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) is right that although lots of things have happened since 2006, everything takes us back to the original inquiry led by Andy Hayman in 2005-06. All the information that is emerging was there at that time. We thought about getting Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to do an independent investigation. Incidentally, I was told at the time that this matter was outside the IPCC’s remit. That might not be the case now. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) is right to ask if it has a role to play. There was a view that we should wait for the Director of Public Prosecutions to report. It was Keir Starmer by that point, I believe, not Ken Macdonald. The DPP said that, on the information given to him by the police—those were the precise words used—there was no cause for any further investigation. We were all swimming around wondering whether we were receiving the correct information.
	I shall quote something that my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn said in his written to statement to Parliament when he was Police Minister, after the fracas around the July 2009 incident. He stated:
	“As mentioned in his statement on 9 July, Assistant Commissioner John Yates is ensuring that the Metropolitan Police Service has been diligent, reasonable and sensible, and taken all proper steps to ensure that where it has evidence that people have been the subject of any form of phone tapping (by Mr. Clive Goodman or Mr. Glen Mulcaire) or that there is any suspicion that they might have been; that they have been informed. The decision to inform individuals that they have been targeted for illegal interception of their phone communications is an operational matter for the police.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 11WS.]
	Clear statements were being made to us. Ministers will know that if the Home Office called in an independent investigator—HMIC or the IPCC—it would cause serious concern, because politicians would be interfering in an operational matter. For all those reasons, even though I and my good friend the former Police Minister may find some of the questions awkward, I believe that a public inquiry is the right way to go.
	I have huge regard for the work of the Metropolitan police, but was it being evasive, dishonest or lethargic? I think it is one of those three.

Frank Dobson: Or all three.

Alan Johnson: Or was it being all three? The hon. Member for Maldon used a vivid phrase about rolling away a huge stone and looking under it. I believe that there was a certain lethargy with so much else going on, and an attitude of “We’ve got two people banged up. Do we need to go any further into this?” Because of the diligence of Members of Parliament—Back Benchers, not Front Benchers—and of some parts of the press in refusing to give up, we can now roll away the stone. Although what we find underneath will be uncomfortable, it will be good for this House and for our society to do so.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. In view of the level of interest in the debate, I am reducing the time limit for Back-Bench speeches to five minutes from now. I would simply add that Members will want to help each other, and they might wish to exercise a degree of self-restraint in either taking or making interventions.

Oliver Heald: May I start by picking up on a point that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) made? He said that celebrities and Members of Parliament having their phones hacked into was bad enough. However, whenever a child goes missing or there is a death in suspicious circumstances, people up and down the land and parents in particular feel a sense of dread and great concern. To think that the allegations that are coming out now relate to such incidents is truly shocking, and that sense of shock is felt right across the House.
	When we last debated the matter on 9 September last year, concern was expressed about the position of Members of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech, as did the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has been so dogged on the issue. The point they made was not that an MP is above anyone else, because of course they are not, but that we have ancient rights that are very important to democracy. We call them privilege, but they are really about having freedom of expression to come here and put our case for the people whom we represent without being impeded in that work. The fact that those rights might have been interfered with in the course of the scandal was why the issue was referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
	Of course, the Committee was in the position that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General described. We were not able to look into the detail of the allegations, because we did not want to prejudice
	what the police were doing any more than anybody else. However, we did look into the principle of how our rights are affected in the modern idiom. Our rights were put forward in 1688, I believe, in the Bill of Rights, which explained what we now call privilege. It was the following year, in 1689, that somebody started trying to interfere by intercepting our letters, so this is not a new problem.
	However, the Committee considered whether we needed to do something to tackle the problem in the modern context. We came to the conclusion, first, that it was necessary for us to debate whether it is just parliamentary activities that should be covered by privilege, or whether it should also include constituency work. We also thought that there was now a case for a privileges Act that would set out what our privileges are and what they mean in the modern context.
	I strongly support the setting up of inquiries, but let us not forget that it is important to tackle the issues set out in the Committee’s 14th report of this Session. I hope that it might be possible for the Government to bring forward a draft privileges Bill fairly soon, so that we can have important debates on a matter that affects the rights of the public in this country. They are perhaps misdescribed as privilege, because they are the rights of the people and are very important.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald), who raised the important point about the use of privilege in dealing with these matters. I join others in congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) on how they have pursued this campaign. The former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), was right that this has been a Back Bencher-led campaign. What was good about what the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said is that now the Front Benchers are with the Bank Benchers in respect of trying to deal with this matter. I also pay tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), and the work done by his Committee over the years.
	The Select Committee on Home Affairs has conducted a separate inquiry, which has looked by and large at what the police have done. We conclude that inquiry on Tuesday, when our witnesses are Mr Andy Hayman, Sue Akers, the head of Operation Weeting, and Peter Clarke, who assisted Mr Hayman in the first inquiry. The Committee must be careful during its examination to ensure that we do not step on the substance of the police investigation, which is the one thing that we need to be concerned about in any public inquiry. I am in favour of a public inquiry, but it is important to frame the terms of reference in such a way that we do not impede the police investigation. That can be done—we are hoping to do it on Tuesday when we take evidence from the police officers concerned. Framing those terms of reference in that way will enable such a public inquiry to take place.
	From the evidence that was given to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and the evidence that the
	Home Affairs Committee has received over the last few months, it is clear that much needs to be looked at. We have not really mentioned the mobile phone companies, but there was an interesting exchange between representatives of the big companies and members of the Home Affairs Committee. When we asked how those companies informed their clients that they had been hacked, we were told that there was no uniformity in their responses. Therefore, in my view, we need not wait until all the criminal matters have been dealt with before issuing guidance.
	Similarly, the Attorney-General was very clear on the payment of police officers. I note from the exchange referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda that when Mr Coulson gave evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, he did not actually know that it was illegal to pay police officers—he felt that it was acceptable when the code of conduct allowed it to happen.
	Yesterday I wrote to previous witnesses to the Home Affairs Committee inquiry simply to ask them whether, before we conclude on Tuesday, they stand by the evidence that they gave—that includes letters to Rebekah Brooks and to Assistant Commissioner John Yates, who gave important evidence on the question of whether he could accept the legal guidance given by the Director of Public Prosecutions. When we have that public inquiry, I hope that we look at the legal advice given by the DPP to the first inquiry, and how that differed from the advice given to the second inquiry.
	I am glad that there appears to be a consensus—an acknowledgement by the Prime Minister that an inquiry should be set up, following the demands of Back Benchers and indeed the Leader of the Opposition—but I caution the House to be careful in those terms of reference, so that we do not prejudice the Operation Weeting investigation. In that way, we can get to the bottom of things, and those who have committed criminal offences can be charged and convicted, without the excuse that the matter was discussed in Parliament, or that they appeared before a public inquiry, and that their prosecutions are therefore not valid.

Dominic Raab: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on securing this debate. The Dowler family are my constituents, and yesterday I spoke to their solicitor. I should add as well that Sara Payne, the mother of Sarah, also lives in my constituency. Allegations of hacking have been made in relation to both families, and the House will understand that there is a deep sense of outrage in the community, which has already been conveyed to me, and across the country at large.
	I know that the Dowler family are deeply disturbed by the revelations of hacking at the time of their daughter’s disappearance and that they would like a public inquiry to get to the bottom of the allegations. Given the emerging allegations over recent days, the case for that inquiry is now irresistible, so I was reassured that the Prime Minister confirmed to the House today that the question is now how, not if, we have that inquiry. The hacking of phones for journalistic, and ultimately
	commercial, gain in the midst of a police inquiry of this nature is utterly reprehensible and heartless. In fact, it is unforgiveable.
	It is imperative that we get to the bottom of what went on in the Dowler case, related cases and the much wider question of journalistic practice and its relationship to the police, which perhaps is one of the graver underlying issues in the whole business. For my part, I think that we need the truth accumulated patiently, not quickly, and certainly not just media snippets. Equally, I have to say that the relish with which the revelations have been greeted by some seeking to take on the Murdoch empire or engaging in political pot-shots strikes me as opportunistic to say the least. I urge all Members to ensure that we do not lose sight of the serious matters before us. The No.1 priority must be to allow the police investigation the freedom to conduct its inquiries rigorously and meticulously.
	The House may recall that the maximum sentence for unlawful interception of communications is two years in prison under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. I understand that, coincidently, that is the same sentence as for the offence of perverting the course of justice. I am sure that hon. Members across the House will want the law to be applied independently, with maximum vigour and with full force, which is why I hope that all Members will refrain from saying, under the cloak of privilege or otherwise, anything that could prejudice any criminal prosecution.
	My understanding is that launching a full inquiry now, as some have called for, would either risk prejudicing the criminal investigation or force the inquiry to be suspended immediately or in relatively short order—at least before it can get to the heart of the matter—pending the outcome of the police investigation. I might be corrected, but I recall that that was the reason the Public Administration Committee, under the chairmanship of the then Member for Cannock Chase, suspended its inquiry into cash for honours. I also recall that similar grounds were put forward by the previous Government in resisting calls for a public inquiry into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, as requested by his family—because it might have interfered with either the health and safety prosecution against the Metropolitan police or the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation that was going on at the same time.
	That said, I am doubtful whether the criminal investigations or subsequent prosecutions—if that is where they lead—could shed enough light on the bigger picture and wider practice of what went on at the News of the World and the other newspapers or on the questions about the police response to the allegations at the time, particularly in relation to the Dowler case. Nevertheless, I have no intention of prejudging or second-guessing the outcome of those criminal investigations. That would be irresponsible. Given the risks of conducting a full inquiry at the same time, it appears inevitable now that we will have to wait for the outcome of the police investigation before any independent inquiry can properly get to the heart of the matter, the core of the business. In addition to the assurances already given to the House by the Attorney-General, I hope that Ministers will undertake to return here at that juncture so that the matter can then be properly considered by the House. I join colleagues in expressing the House’s determination
	and resolve to ensure that we get full answers to every one of the very serious questions that have emerged in recent days and weeks.

Alun Michael: Let me start by congratulating and thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has performed a great public service in the clear, precise and consistent way that he has pursued this issue, as has my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson). They have done us all a great favour, including this House.
	The Attorney-General was right to tell the House that there are issues on which Ministers will say little in the short term. All the allegations need to be fully investigated and prosecutions should follow if the evidence substantiates them. We must do nothing in this House that would impede police investigations or the consequences being pursued. However, this issue goes far wider than that, as I am sure the Attorney-General would accept. It goes much wider than the faults or criminal activities of individuals, which is why a judicial or public inquiry needs to be established now. We need that assurance.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s giving way, especially as I have been subject to an investigation by the police in connection with this matter. I wonder whether he could outline for us who he thinks would be of sufficient calibre to carry out such an investigation. Would they be an international figure or someone from the United Kingdom?

Alun Michael: I do not have time to go into that adequately. What I would say is that we need a public inquiry with the capacity to get to the bottom of various issues. Therefore, it needs to be set up carefully and have appropriate powers, and not be the type of bureaucratic public inquiry that has sometimes got in the way of the truth emerging.
	We have heard one of the investigators complaining about the relentless pressure of demands from the News of the World on investigators and journalists. I did not detect a great deal of sympathy in the House—I think I heard a bit of a groan, indicating a lack of sympathy—but pressure comes in two forms. One is the pressure to deliver—“You’re only as good as your next headline”—and the other is the general pressure of what is acceptable and expected in any profession, or the environment in which people do their work. It is important that both be addressed. At the heart of the matter are three issues. The first is the standard of journalism; and the second is the standard of governance in the press and the media. This could—indeed, should—be a watershed moment. In general, journalists want to be open and transparent and to do an honest job, but that is not easy all the time. I saw something of the power of the press pack as a young journalist in south Wales.
	The Press Complaints Commission is well meaning but, frankly, it is a joke. The public and journalists deserve better. Its lack of influence and inability to change the environment or set standards lets down those who have earned a high reputation for themselves and for our better newspapers and media outlets. The Press Complaints Commission clearly has neither the will nor the capacity to change things, but we need to take care: statutory regulation of the press and media
	could endanger press independence, which would be a massive mistake. We need an independent body, but one that is robust and effective and has the powers to investigate and enforce. It would be a major step forward if such a body emerged from these events, as I hope will happen.
	I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) told us that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner had referred the issue of possible payments to police officers to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, but the IPCC’s investigation needs to go a little wider. The Chair of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), pointed out that the information now coming into the public domain was in the possession of the police in 2006. I hope that the commissioner will refer that to the IPCC too. The Metropolitan police had also reported to Ministers. My right hon. Friends the Members for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) had information on which they had to take their decisions, and so has the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Those issues relate to the conduct of the police and the activities of police officers and need to be looked at objectively. The IPCC should be asked to do that.
	What the IPCC does should feed into the wider public inquiry; I do not think that the two are alternatives. The IPCC has the resources and the investigative capacities, and it has earned a reputation for being tough. It is therefore important that it should be able to ask the questions, “Did the police mislead Ministers and Parliament?”, “Did police receive money?”—that question has been referred to it already—and, “Did relationships distort investigations?” It is important that those questions should be forensically investigated as part of preparing the ground for the wider, transparent investigation that we need, as the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) said. I do not think that these are alternatives, but we need the forensic capacity of the IPPC to look into some of these issues.
	The third issue is that we need clarity about the law. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, rightly said that the Committee had identified confusion about what the law says. That confusion should not exist. I refer specifically to the fact that John Yates told us that there were only a small number of victims, based on what he said was legal advice that the police would have to prove that messages had been intercepted and also listened to before being heard by the recipient. However, Kier Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, told us that that was not the advice given to detectives. Advice from prosecutors was at best provisional and did not limit the scope or extent of the criminal investigation—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I call Zac Goldsmith.

Zac Goldsmith: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on securing this hugely important debate, which has already led to something of a breakthrough. The whole House should be grateful to him for his contribution.
	I shall speak briefly but firmly in support of the motion. I was encouraged by the words of the Attorney-General earlier. This scandal has escalated dramatically. At first, it involved just the odd celebrity, and then a few members of their wider families. Then it emerged that members of staff employed by those celebrities had been hacked, some of whom lost their jobs because they were falsely accused of leaking information to the press. When absolutely pushed, the public said that they were uncomfortable with this news, but there was no outcry. That was because the many media commentators soothed them, saying, “It’s just celebrities. They know what they signed up for, and this is what it’s all about. It’s tittle-tattle.” We were told that the hacking was distasteful, but if we interfered with the press, we would never see any exposure of corruption, fraud or hypocrisy.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman has alluded to the continual drip, drip of further revelations. Given what has happened, does he agree that by this stage, anyone who has been hacked should at least be informed of that fact?

Zac Goldsmith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman 100%, and I suspect that everyone else does, too.
	The revelations have continued, and in the past few days we have seen what appears to be almost a tsunami. We have heard the details involving the families of the tragic Soham girls, and the sickening details relating to Milly Dowler herself. I will not repeat them. We have also heard about the victims of 7/7. Those are all innocent people who never chose to be in the public limelight.
	I suspect that, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) implied, this is the tip of the iceberg. We have no idea how big that iceberg is, which is why we need a full public inquiry. On its own, this scandal justifies such an inquiry. We have seen the abuse of position and power on an awesome scale. The blurred lines that we have allowed to exist for the press, to allow them to do what we need them to do, have been well and truly stretched. We have seen systemic abuse of almost unprecedented power. There is nothing noble in what those newspapers have been doing.
	We cannot see this matter on its own, however, because the corporation has not acted on its own. Revelations last night, although they have yet to be proven, showed that a former editor provided authorisation for payments to the police. This demonstrates that the company was not acting on its own, and what can generously be described as a sloppy investigation by the police suggests that that collaboration ran very deep indeed. There can be few things more important to members of the public in this country than an ability to trust the police. Tragically, however, what began as a conspiracy theory is now looking less and less like a theory.
	This does not even end with the police. As MPs, we depend on the media. We like to be liked by them; we need to be liked by them. We depend on the media, and that applies still more to Governments. It is an unavoidable observation that Parliament has behaved with extraordinary cowardice for many years, with a few very honourable exceptions, whom I shall identify. They are the hon. Members for Rhondda and for West Bromwich East
	(Mr Watson) in particular, but they are not alone. Collectively, however, we have turned a blind eye. It is only with this latest sordid twist, the shameful behaviour of the
	News of the World
	in relation to Milly Dowler and the subsequent outpouring of public rage, that Parliament has finally found its—what is the correct term?—backbone, and taken a stand. Well, it is better late than never.
	Rupert Murdoch is clearly a very talented businessman and possibly even a genius, but his organisation has grown too powerful and it has abused its power. It has systematically corrupted the police and, in my view, has gelded this Parliament, to our shame.

Sheila Gilmore: rose—

Zac Goldsmith: I am about to finish, so it would be fine if the hon. Lady would like to intervene now.

Sheila Gilmore: In the light of the hon. Gentleman’s comments, does he agree that the issues Members have raised on this topic over the last few months are relevant to the proposed BSkyB takeover so we should show our backbone on that issue, too?

Zac Goldsmith: I agree absolutely. It is not possible, as suggested earlier, to separate what we are talking about now from the proposed takeover. I think any separation would be entirely artificial. That deal needs to be put on hold by the Government until the dust has settled and we know where we stand. Anything less than that will be viewed as appalling by the public and will be met with a nod of disapproval. This is a crucial issue, so I hope to hear some more positive remarks about it in the wrap-up.
	I have said what I came here to say and have only a few seconds left. This motion is hugely important. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda for this breakthrough and I hope the House will provide him with the support he deserves in pursuing this incredibly important agenda.

Clive Efford: The whole country is rightly shocked at the revelations of what has been going on in our media, but today is not the time to go into details about who said what or did what at what time. Our role is to secure a full and open public inquiry. I note the acceptance of that by the Government Front-Bench team, but the issue now is when. We need to secure the available evidence to do a thorough job of investigating the issue now. The inquiry needs to be set up while the police investigations continue.
	This debate is about what kind of country we want to be. A free press is an essential part of our democracy. It challenges us, exposes our weaknesses, sometimes helps to get our message across and keeps people informed of the arguments to help them to form a balanced opinion. However, the press has developed as Parliament has developed and there is a symbiotic relationship between politics and journalism. The issues we are debating here today really go to the heart of what kind of nation we want to be in the future.
	We need to understand that what we are debating today has to do with how we treat weak and vulnerable people or the bereaved, and whether we stand up for people when they are under pressure or being unfairly
	treated, or whether we become part of a baying mob, egged on by the likes of the
	News of the World
	, eager for a kill just for the sheer excitement of it and heedless of the consequences for the victims and of whether what we are witnessing amounts to justice.
	I do not believe that people want to live in that sort of country or feel that we have become such a country. The public do not share the values of the media people who have effectively brought this debate to the Floor of the House today. They do not share the values of those who have invaded the lives of innocent victims and bereaved families when they are grieving and at their most vulnerable.
	I was not brought up in a country that stood by while others suffered. I always believed that the post-war Britain I grew up in was a country that stood up for fairness and perhaps for those who were not as strong as ourselves. I thought the country was populated by a heroic generation that was justifiably proud of what it had endured through the second world war and of the freedoms that had been won—not just for themselves but for the whole world. That was achieved by ordinary people doing extraordinary things for the greater good of everyone. It is these ordinary people we are defending today.
	Who are the people who believe that they can trample over the lives of ordinary people and use them for their own ends or their own advancement? Should we allow ourselves to be seduced into accepting that the things these people dictate to us, claiming they are in our interest, are acceptable and should be allowed to happen?

Helen Goodman: rose —

Clive Efford: I will not give way, if my hon. Friend does not mind.
	I cannot go into the detail of specific cases, as others have done. What I will say, however—this is one of the points that I really wanted to make—is that I think there is a corporate responsibility. I applaud Ford for withdrawing its advertising from News Corporation. I also think that anyone who is not a fit and proper person to drive my old taxi should not be put in charge of a major news outlet.
	Other organisations—Halifax, npower, T-Mobile and Orange—say that they are reconsidering their position, while Tesco and Virgin Media say that they will wait for the outcome of the police inquiry. That is not good enough. I say to people who may be purchasing goods from those organisations, or thinking of buying a new mobile phone, that they should not trade with companies that do not stand side by side with the ordinary person in the street who is outraged at what has gone on in News International.
	Only if ordinary people make a stand will we stop these rich people—rich people who have invaded the lives of ordinary people in the street—making themselves even richer and even more powerful. Only by hurting them where it really matters—in their profits—will the ordinary person in the street influence their behaviour in the future.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. A great many Members still wish to speak. I am going to reduce the speaking time limit to four minutes, and if speakers show restraint, I may manage to get everyone in.

Adrian Sanders: As we have heard, the phone hacking scandal has been examined twice by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, of which I am a member. Our report published in July 2007 examined the self-regulation—or lack of it—of the press, partly in the light of the Goodman-Mulcaire revelations. It was claimed that the practice had been a one-off, but, even then, there was serious concern that the problem might be more widespread and that more investigation was needed.
	The Press Complaints Commission had appeared toothless, while reports from the Information Commissioner in 2006 had hinted that illegal activity of all sorts was taking place, driven by the desire of tabloid newspapers—not just News International—to print sensational stories. Revelations in 2009 and 2010 forced us to look at the matter again. There was news that phone companies had positively identified a large number of probable and definite victims, information that Scotland Yard had refused to release and about which it was coy to the point of dissembling. It was becoming clear that Scotland Yard itself had not been handling the inquiry satisfactorily and that only the pursuit of the case by other media outlets was forcing any progress at all.
	As the House knows, our inquiry concluded that we had not been told the truth. Our report stated:
	“We strongly condemn this behaviour which reinforces the widely held impression that the press generally regard themselves as unaccountable and that News International in particular has sought to conceal the truth about what really occurred.”

Michael McCann: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman heard yesterday’s interview on Radio 5 Live with my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), in which Stephen Abell, the director of the Press Complaints Commission, refused to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the behaviour of the press. I promoted a debate in the House on the self-regulation of the press. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that now is the time for a root-and-branch review of the commission?

Adrian Sanders: I did not hear that interview, but when one considers the Press Complaints Commission, the phrase “chocolate teapot”, or indeed the phrase “fishnet condom”, comes to mind.
	Our 2007 inquiry had elicited a response from News International that it had carried out a full inquiry itself and was satisfied that the Mulcaire-Goodman case was isolated. That was patently untrue. Our second inquiry encountered more obstacles: Goodman and Mulcaire refused to present evidence, as did Rebekah Brooks. More worrying were the attitude and answers of Scotland Yard.
	I return to the point that I made to the Prime Minister today. We cannot have confidence in an investigation by the Metropolitan police; we can have confidence only in a full judicial inquiry with a judge who can take witnesses under oath, ask questions under oath, seek papers, and subpoena witnesses to appear. We desperately need that inquiry. Clearly, where there are allegations of criminal acts or there is the potential for collusion between suspects and the police, a more rigorous investigation is required than, sadly, a Select Committee can offer. It is
	also clear that we need to extend the scope beyond News International. Operation Motorman highlighted that the
	Daily Mail 
	was trading most prolifically in illicit personal information, while the
	 Daily Mirror,
	when under the auspices of Piers Morgan, is suspected of using voicemail interception to reveal Sven-Goran Eriksson’s affair with Ulrika Jonsson. Given that there are questions over Scotland Yard’s handling of the current case, it is essential that its actions are reviewed independently and that future action against suspected phone hackers does not remain solely the domain of the Met.
	When the Culture, Media and Sport Committee looked at the first investigation under Andy Hayman, it found that there was the air of Inspector Clouseau about it, but as the subsequent investigation under John Yates progressed one almost got the impression that something far more sinister was at work. The revelations to date show that the police must have known far more than they let on, and that there is considerable scope for them to have misled Members of the House on several occasions.
	Finally, let me say that I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for ensuring that we can hold this debate, and the whole House should be grateful to him for that as well.

Paul Farrelly: May I add that Mr Speaker has done a great service to Parliament and the many victims and their families by allowing today’s debate?
	Three years have now passed since we who serve on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee started our inquiry into press standards, privacy and libel. We undertook that inquiry because of the treatment the tabloid press meted out to the McCann family, and it took such a long time because we had to reopen the investigation into phone hacking, not for political reasons but for the integrity of this House as it was clear that we had been misled by News International. Last year, we did not believe its follow-up evidence either, and subsequent events have proved us right. As many people have said, the latest events are likely to prove to be the tip of the iceberg of cynicism, double standards, cover-up and law breaking over a long period by a publication that clearly felt itself to be above the law.

Helen Goodman: My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) made the point that the former Director of Public Prosecutions has now been taken on as a silk for News International, and that is indeed the case. He was DPP when Glenn Mulcaire was prosecuted. The Attorney-General said that that was a matter for his professional ethics, but surely this should have gone through the Cabinet Office as he was a senior public servant?

Paul Farrelly: I entirely agree. The former DPP should be invited to examine not only his ethics and his conscience, but his record in this, because he is also culpable in the failure to get to the bottom of this affair.
	Nothing should surprise us about the News of the World, but what did surprise us during our inquiry was the approach of the Metropolitan police and the evidence it gave to us. Our report was highly critical of the Met, but
	right up until the start of Operation Weeting in January there seemed to be a determination to limit the inquiry and close it down as quickly as possible. The concerns about that, and about the Metropolitan police’s links to a powerful Sunday tabloid, have long merited this independent inquiry that is going to be allowed today.
	We must not lose sight of the fact that, despicable and unlawful as it is, phone hacking is just one clever ruse, and there is a further question any inquiry must address: was there a trade in information in return for payments or favours between the police and the News of the World that was not only unlawful or unethical, but was to the detriment of ordinary people—not just celebrities such as Sienna Miller, or politicians, but ordinary people who might be considered fair game by the News of the  World, but whose well-being it is the police’s duty to protect? These questions alone constitute good grounds for an independent public inquiry.
	Before the Prime Minister’s statement today, I was pondering whether we could rely on the News of the World, with its new spirit of thorough co-operation, to whistleblow on itself fully. I suggest the record rather suggests not. Indeed, following the publication of our report of February last year, News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks dismissed it, and News International issued a statement saying, with absolutely no hint of irony, that
	“the reaction of the Committee to its failure to find any new evidence has been to make claims of ‘collective amnesia’, deliberate obfuscation and concealment of the truth.”
	For good measure, it added, again with no irony, that
	“certain members of this CMS Committee have repeatedly violated the public trust.”
	Editor Colin Myler was more explicit. He singled out me and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) in a full-page editorial:
	“We’ll take no lessons in standards”.
	He continued:
	“Sadly, the victims here are you, the public”.
	That was very prescient of Mr Myler, but clearly not in the way he intended. That scathing, self-serving editorial ran to more than 1,100 words, whereas the eventual apology to victims in April this year ran to just 160 words. That would be comical if it were not so sad.
	Much has been said about Rebekah Brooks, and I agree that her position is untenable. As for the editor of the News of the World—I will be charitable—Mr Myler has, by now, had so much wool pulled over his eyes that he clearly cannot find his own self-respect or his resignation; he is staying in post at the News of the World.
	Could the Press Complaints Commission be trusted with an inquiry? Sadly, the answer is no. The PCC was lauded in that editorial, but this is how its chair, Baroness Buscombe, returned the compliment yesterday:
	“There’s only so much we can do when people are lying to us.”
	The PCC accepted none of our recommendations, including our suggestion for a new name—the press complaints and standards commission. The body commands little respect and it has a much-diminished chair. As for the police, Operation Weeting certainly seems to be more thorough, but beforehand there was little competition. It is time for a public inquiry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has suggested.
	Following the latest revelations there has been much talk of a “tipping point” for the press, but we have been at tipping points many times before—for example, with the McCann family—and nothing has changed. Above all, for the better of decent journalism in this country, all newspaper proprietors, not just Rupert Murdoch, must look themselves in the mirror and ask, “Do I like what I see?” and, “Do I care to change it?”

Anna Soubry: Yesterday, I momentarily hesitated before rising to support the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), but only because I was unfamiliar with the procedure—I did know that he was doing the right thing. I, too, congratulate him, and not only on bringing this debate to this House. I congratulate him also because I believe that a consensus is forming across this House, and that is to be welcomed.
	I thought also yesterday that our newspapers had sunk to the darkest moment in their history, given the revelations about the tapping of Milly Dowler’s phone. It is important that we get the language right; we are talking about the theft of evidence, the destruction of evidence, the impeding of the investigation into the disappearance of a child and, as it turned out, a murder investigation. I might have misheard the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), but if I heard him correctly and he is right in what he was saying, all of that was known by the Metropolitan police back in 2002. For reasons that I cannot comprehend, no investigation was undertaken by the Metropolitan police at that time into what were undoubtedly extremely serious criminal offences. I am absolutely confident that this new inquiry will look into the dealings of the police, because the spotlight is rightly now not just on our newspapers; it is moving on to our police. What has been going on concerns me greatly.
	Yesterday was also a bleak day for our newspapers, because we saw the Attorney-General prosecute two of them for contempt of court for their coverage of the arrest of a man in Bristol in relation to the murder of Jo Yeates. I wholeheartedly congratulate the Attorney-General on taking that prosecution, as it was a courageous move. The hon. Member for Rhondda talked about the need for politicians to be courageous and I absolutely agree. We must be not only courageous, but honest. I will be honest and say that I am not sure that I was as courageous as I should have been with my private Member’s Bill in February. That is because any politician treads exceptionally cautiously when they stand up in this place to criticise the press and ask for it to be curtailed. As the hon. Gentleman said, we know the possible consequences of making that sort of move.

Robert Buckland: Have not the words of Stanley Baldwin some 70 years ago, when he described the press as having
	“power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages”
	been brought to bear by this most grotesque example that we have discussed today?

Anna Soubry: I concur absolutely, and I am sure that that sentiment is echoed across the House.
	Such is my concern—I have been persuaded by much of what I have heard today—that I think there must
	now be a pause in the consideration of the matter that has been referred to and will be determined by Ofcom. I urge the Secretary of State to consider whether we should pause things, given what has happened.
	In the time remaining, I want to return to the subject of my private Member’s Bill. I am not sure whether it falls within the remit of the public inquiry, but I hope that the Government will consider changing the law. I believe that the press has lost the moral plot and I say that with a heavy heart because before I went back to the Bar I trained as a journalist and worked as one for many years. I am proud to be a member of the National Union of Journalists and I was mother of the chapel at Central in Nottingham. I look on my brothers and sisters at a national level with, frankly, despair. It is important to remind ourselves that small local papers are very different from national papers—

Chris Bryant: Any in particular?

Anna Soubry: I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman’s sedentary intervention, which is probably a good thing.
	In all seriousness, it is right and fair to say that all of us know from our considerable experience that local papers act properly and responsibly. We all enjoy a perfectly proper relationship with them—a relationship that has not been enjoyed between other politicians and national newspapers, which is a situation that must change.
	It comes down to this: if people did not buy these newspapers, we would not have this problem. Too many people have an insatiable appetite for gossip, trivia, scandal and the scum of life and that is why we have found ourselves in this position. If people did not buy such papers—I hope that on Sunday the News of the World will get its real punishment through a complete and total slump in its sales—we would effectively see the sort of regulation and change that we all want. There must be a huge cultural shift not only in how we deal with newspapers but in how they conduct themselves. They should act in a much better and more responsible manner in future.

Michael Meacher: I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and, of course, the demand for a public inquiry, but I want to argue that its remit should perhaps be a little wider than the immediate phone hacking affair.
	The central question concerns the governance of News International, the present chief executive of which, Rebekah Brooks, says that it is “inconceivable” that she knew about phone hacking—[ Laughter. ] That was her word. A former News of the World journalist, Paul McMullan, said in effect that it was inconceivable that she did not know, however. The idea that she will stay on, effectively to investigate herself, is simply surreal.
	It was News International that paid out large sums of hush money to cover up evidence of criminality within the organisation and that, according to the PCC, lied to the regulator, yet that is the company seeking the right to become the most powerful media company that this country has ever seen. Based on the evidence that is already known—never mind that which is still due to come out from the other 11,000 pages of Glen Mulcaire’s notes—I cannot see how the Secretary of State for
	Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport can let that go through. After today and after this week, almost the whole country will be behind that view.
	There are wider questions. The first concerns the media plurality that the Secretary of State likes to pray in aid to explain how hemmed in he is by statute. The answer to that question is that, as formulated, the system is antique and obsolete when faced with a behemoth such as the Murdoch empire. The combination of News Corporation and BSkyB will be in a position to distort or bend competition through cross-promotion, price bundling, preventing rivals from advertising and other distortions in the advertising market. The fact is that none of those issues, which are crucial to the question of competitiveness, was even considered by the Secretary of State. That is the decisive reason why he should reconsider.

Denis MacShane: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Michael Meacher: I would love to give way to my right hon. Friend, but I am under instructions not to give way.
	In particular, the idea cooked up by News International that putting Sky News into a separate company somehow preserves media plurality is utterly spurious. Newco, the company that will run Sky News, will be dependent on News Corporation for 85% of its revenues and for access to the market, and the safeguards for editorial independence are weak and of the kind that News International has repeatedly undermined before. Neither Ofcom nor the Office of Fair Trading regards this arrangement as a sustainable solution, the two-week consultation period was clearly inadequate, and the arrangement puts far too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State rather than independent regulators. Those are all very strong reasons why the Secretary of State has to look at this again, after a pause, which the whole House is asking for.
	Lastly, I want to say something about the Press Complaints Commission, which is surely one of the most ineffective performers in the regulatory landscape. It played absolutely no role whatever in uncovering the phone hacking revelations; indeed, it far too readily dismissed The Guardian’s original warnings nearly two years ago. I really do think that the PCC has been so poor that the public inquiry should look again at the future of self-regulation after so many cautions, including David Mellor’s warning 20 years ago—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Therese Coffey: First, let me apologise to hon. Members who might wonder why I have been called, given that I left the Chamber earlier. I went to see the Third Reading of my private Member’s Bill in the other place; unfortunately, there seemed to be a mini-debate on Lords reform first.
	I absolutely share hon. Members’ feelings of being appalled at the revelations and allegations being made today. Of course I extend my sympathy to the victims,
	including Beverli Rhodes, a 7/7 survivor whom people might have heard on LBC this morning saying that she was concerned that her phone had been hacked.
	There are several issues to discuss, but I am afraid I might break the somewhat cosy consensus that has developed so far. There is no question but that the police investigation has been shown to be unsatisfactory, as we have seen from previous reports of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. However, there are some things we can do straight away. The whole business of dancing on the head of a pin regarding whether certain hacking is illegal could be dealt with by a simple change to clause 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. I have confidence that Deputy Assistant Commissioner Akers will make some progress with Operation Weeting, but I also understand that it might be appropriate to bring in an external force to help with that.
	The hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) has brought in some new allegations about News International today. I agree that News International has not helped itself with its drip-drip feed of information and, perhaps, casual approach to investigation internally. I do not know whether the actions were deliberate or whether there were simply people there who were out of control. What I do know is that News Corp did finally react, and has brought in people to do an investigation, which is the right thing to do alongside the police inquiry.
	I believe that a witch hunt against Rebekah Brooks is being developed. I do not hold a candle for her—I met her once last year at a Conservative party conference and I am sure that she has been at Labour party conferences before—but I am worried about this aspect. This is not the time to hold back evidence, and I hope that my hon. Friends will present evidence rather than simply say that Rebekah Brooks was the editor at the time. Let me give the analogy of a sales director I know of from my previous commercial experience who was pressurising his sales people to keep up with their quotas and find new business. He was not aware that two people were indulging in what could be called illegal practices—basically, bribing people—and it is right that we found that out, but I am not saying it was right for that sales director to be told they personally had to resign.

Helen Goodman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Therese Coffey: I cannot give way, because I know that other people want to speak.
	I also recognise that Operation Motorman and Operation Glade took place. Indeed, Rebekah Brooks herself was told that her phone might have been hacked and that the Home Office and the police also tapped her phone—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I am just saying that it happens to a number of people. What that reflects, as the Information Commissioner discussed in his report back in 2006, is that the problem was not unique to one news group. The multiple inquiries that we have, which I fully support, should look across the news industry, not solely at News International.
	There is also a route within Parliament to address this. We have heard today about how Parliament did not react, but the Culture, Media and Sport Committee did. We also have an opportunity to address this issue through the privacy committee being set up to look at
	super-injunctions. We could extend its terms to address this, in addition to the public inquiry. Given the lack of confidence in previous Members of the House, perhaps it should have a majority of new Members.
	Moving forward, I should like the police inquiry to be given as much resource as it needs to reach its conclusions very quickly. I want the public inquiries to be established and I should like the privacy committee to be enhanced. Finally, let me make one point about BSkyB. News International is not News Corp, Rebekah Brooks is not a director of News Corp or BSkyB, and I understand that she has no intention of ever being so.

Pat McFadden: Some years ago I was a questioned as a witness in the investigation in the “cash for honours” allegations, because I am a former staff member at No. 10 Downing street. Those allegations may have harmed the Labour party’s capacity to raise money, because people did not want to go near our party in case their reputation was trashed in the media. The allegations may have harmed our ability to win elections, thus resulting in our being in opposition, rather than in government. The police investigation, however, came to nothing. There were no prosecutions, no charges and no case that the Crown Prosecution Service thought worthy of prosecution.
	During those investigations thousands of e-mails and notes were investigated, and dozens of people were interviewed. Those who were questioned—and in some cases arrested, although never charged—often found themselves in the newspapers immediately, as the twists and turns of the investigation leaked out. People were taken from their beds in the early hours of the morning and appeared immediately all over the newspapers, even though they were innocent of any crime.
	It is absolutely right that the police should be tireless in their pursuit of truth and that no obstacle should stand in their way, but it is impossible not to draw a contrast between the zeal with which that ultimately fruitless investigation was pursued and the investigation into hacking by the News of the World—particularly in view of the fact that, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the Chair of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, most of the evidence that has emerged in recent days has been in the hands of the police since 2006. Why was the defence of one rogue operator believed for so long, as it has become clear that the practice was much more systematic? Why, after each new piece of information comes out, do we suddenly find that new e-mails are uncovered?
	The affair focuses on the conduct of the News of the World and the victims of the practice of phone hacking, but the conduct of the newspaper—and perhaps of other newspapers that may be involved—is not the only question. Given the history of the issue, we must consider the question of who in this affair polices the police, and asks hard questions about the police investigation. That investigation may have been stepped up, but we need an inquiry to ask hard questions about the relationship between the police and the News of the  World in particular—about payment for information and the trade in information and personal details. Whether it is an IPCC inquiry or the public inquiry for which we have called, those questions are part of the picture.
	The Attorney-General rightly said that there must not be one law for the powerful and another for the non-powerful, but it is also true that there should not be one law for part of the powerful—the political world—and another law for another part of the powerful, which is the media world. All of us must be equal and subject to the law.

Tom Brake: Any newspaper or other media outlet that interferes by hacking or any other means into people’s phones, e-mails or post, and any newspaper that interferes with police investigations to maximise profits and concoct more salacious headlines, is acting despicably and illegally, and inflicts more pain on victims. Any claim that it is acting in the public interest, or that it is all down to a single rogue operator, will be treated with the derision and scorn that it deserves. That newspaper should expect the full force of the law to bear down on it, and it should feel the heat as consumers and advertisers vote with their feet. I am pleased that that is exactly what is beginning to happen.
	It is difficult to believe that those illegal activities, given their scale and the specific nature of the information that was being supplied to a newspaper—which could not, in my view, have been obtained legally—were restricted to one private investigator or one newspaper. It is hard to understand why the original police inquiry was so truncated. For those reasons there is agreement in the House today on the need for a wide inquiry or inquiries headed by a judge. The inquiries should look at which media used those illegal techniques, what can be done to address what is clearly a widespread cultural problem within the industry, and what changes to the law might be required.
	We also need to tackle the Met and examine what went wrong with the original inquiry, where it appears that not only was every stone not turned over, but a whole rockery was left in place. Were payments were made? Were investigations hindered as a result of other unacceptable activities? Those are just some of the matters that the judge and the Home Secretary—if that is who sets the terms of reference—will want the inquiry to examine. We will need to establish a clear time scale and the costings for the inquiry.
	There are many other aspects that I wanted to touch on, but time is short. We are faced with a scandal of expanding proportions, including hacking, allegations of interference in police investigations, and claims that payments have been made to officers. To restore faith and trust in the police and the media, we must lock up the guilty, establish a statutory inquiry, shine a cleansing light on the culture of the media and, if necessary, of the police, and implement the reforms necessary to ensure that the privacy of victims and citizens is never intruded on again. It is clear from today’s debate that this is the will of the House, and we are committed to making it happen.

Catherine McKinnell: I extend my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on securing this emergency debate, and on his longstanding and
	tireless campaign to bring these issues to light, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson).
	There have been many thoughtful, powerful, comprehensive and brave contributions from Members in all parts of the House today, including from a number of the victims and alleged victims of the phone hacking scandal, and from several Chairs of Select Committees who have been involved in investigating the matter. It is clear that all Members of the House hold a common view that the ongoing criminal investigation into phone hacking activity must take priority.
	It is important to be clear that we on the Opposition Benches would not support any course of action that could or would put the hard work of the police and investigators, or any future criminal prosecutions, at risk. Our priority and focus must be on ensuring that justice is secured for people who have been victims of that crime. In considering this issue, it is of course important to reiterate that the increasingly shocking and distressing revelations in this scandal should by no means result in all journalists and newspapers, whether national or local, being tarred with the same brush. The incredibly important role played by the tireless campaigning of The Guardian on the issue has been mentioned. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) paid tribute to the great work of local journalists too.
	However, a criminal justice system that inspires public confidence and an independent, rigorously regulated media are two key planks of a functioning democracy, and it is clear that both of these have been damaged by this developing scandal. The allegations unfolding daily, and sometimes hourly, have thrown up many more issues than can be dealt with or resolved through criminal investigations and prosecutions alone. We are not alone in saying this. The Government should listen to the public and, as the shadow Home Secretary outlined earlier, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner himself. That is why we welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment today to hold a public inquiry, or inquiries, into the issues that have arisen as a result of this scandal.

Charlie Elphicke: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Catherine McKinnell: I am afraid that I cannot, as time is very short.
	As outlined earlier, given the potential conflicts of interest, we need reassurance about exactly what the Prime Minister’s role will be in this. I must also reference the widespread concerns expressed by Members across the House about News Corp’s takeover of BSkyB. I trust that the Attorney-General and the Culture Secretary will treat all these concerns with the seriousness they deserve and take action accordingly. Although the Attorney-General said that he was mindful of the comments that have been made during the course of the debate, we have not been reassured that positive steps to set up a full, independent, wide-ranging and transparent inquiry will be taken without delay.
	Without jeopardising any criminal investigations or future prosecutions, the Government can begin the work of agreeing the nature and scope of the inquiry and who will take it forward before those criminal
	proceedings are complete. Criminal investigations into, and prosecutions for, phone hacking will certainly take months to reach a conclusion, and possibly years. If we are to start to rebuild the public’s confidence in our criminal justice system and the operation of our newspaper industry, the public and the victims of this dreadful crime need the reassurance of a public inquiry now.

Damian Green: We have had an important and overwhelmingly thoughtful debate on a subject of deep significance not only to the House, but to a huge number of people across the country. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have, as is perfectly reasonable, expressed their disgust and outrage at the latest allegations we have heard over the past few days.
	To hack into the phone messages of victims of murder and terrorism and their families will strike all right-thinking people as completely beyond the pale. As the Prime Minister has made clear, and as the Attorney-General stated at the start of the debate, the Government share the shock of the House and the nation. Our thoughts are with the families of those affected by this latest cruel twist in what has been for many of them an horrific ordeal. The Dowler family have gone through more in the last few weeks and years than any family should ever have to go through. The same is true of the families of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. Now, as we approach the sixth anniversary of the 7/7 London bombings, we hear that the families of the victims of our worst ever terrorist attack might also have had their phones hacked. The timing is a particularly terrible irony, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said at the outset of the debate.
	I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the whole House not only on obtaining the debate, but on fighting for so many years on the issue. I congratulate him also on striking exactly the right tone in the debate; it is a matter on which the House needs to move forward as one. I also agree with the shadow Home Secretary’s point that one of the institutions that need to look at how they operate in this regard is the House of Commons, which must decide how best to deal with such difficult matters that not only give rise to complex issues of public policy, but require personal bravery on the part of individual Members by putting themselves and their reputations on the line. She made that point and it is exactly right.
	It is not just the rich and famous whose lives may have been affected—although they, too, have basic rights to privacy and fair dealings—but the families of those who have suffered pain beyond what any of us can imagine have had their lives intruded on. The hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), who also deserves congratulations, provided new and powerful evidence about some of the things that have gone on. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) made the particularly important point that, although much of the debate has inevitably concentrated on News International, the subject is much wider and relates to other press groups and newspapers as well.
	I also praise the honesty of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Home Secretary, and the former Police Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson),
	in revealing that some of the untruths and cover-ups that they might have had to deal with meant that they either took decisions that in retrospect they might wish they had not taken, or, indeed, actively said things that misled the House. It is important that everyone accepts the honest tone in which such revelations have been made. I congratulate also my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who made a powerful point about not endangering prosecutions.

Clive Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Damian Green: I apologise, but I really do not have time.
	Owing to the seriousness of the allegations and to the fresh information, the Metropolitan police service decided in January to open a new investigation, which many Members have mentioned. It is being led by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers, and I should emphasise that it involves a completely separate unit in the Met from the one that carried out the original investigation in 2006. It is one of the largest ongoing police investigations, and it is precisely because of this new, thorough investigation that new evidence and information about what exactly went on is being obtained. The investigation has already led to five arrests, and it is entirely possible that there will be further arrests and, potentially, further prosecutions.
	The Director of Public Prosecutions has announced that the Crown Prosecution Service will examine any evidence resulting from the Met investigation, and it has asked Alison Levitt QC, who has had no previous involvement in the case, to take a robust approach in deciding whether any prosecutions can be brought.
	The Home Secretary spoke this morning to Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. He assured her that the current investigation is fully resourced and proceeding well; he told her that any allegations of inappropriate payments made to police officers by journalists is being fully and independently investigated in conjunction with the Independent Police Complaints Commission; and he assured the Home Secretary also that this matter will continue to be investigated through Operation Elveden, under the direction of Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers, in partnership with the Met’s directorate of professional standards.
	Of course, a number of cases may go before the courts, so it is important that we do not prejudge or prejudice potential future prosecutions. We must allow the current police investigation to get to the bottom of these terrible allegations and to discover the truth, but it is clear that, in the light of the step change in the seriousness of the allegations, we must have a public inquiry or inquiries into these matters.
	Three hours having elapsed since the start of proceedings, the motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 24).

Estimates Day
	 — 
	[3rd Allotted Day]
	 — 
	estimates 2011-12

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

Afghanistan and Pakistan

[Relevant Documents:  Fourth Report from the Foreign Affairs  Committee , Session 2010-12, on th e  UK’s foreign policy approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan, HC 514, and the Government response, Cm 8064.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2012, for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £1,279,625,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 921,
	(2) further resources, not exceeding £19,718,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £1,188,315,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Mr Vara.)

Richard Ottaway: The British involvement in Afghanistan has been long and costly, and whether it has achieved its stated objectives is a moot point, but that does not imply that it was the wrong decision or that we should not be there.
	In the aftermath of 9/11, it was essential to deny al-Qaeda a base to operate; the intervention was essential; and there was a United Nations-mandated coalition of the willing led by the United States, but as usual we were in close support. Following the general election, the coalition Government very much followed the Afghanistan policy of their predecessor, but two important changes did take place: first, the establishment of the National Security Council to co-ordinate Whitehall’s Afghan war effort; and, crucially, the publicly announced decision to set 2015 as the deadline for withdrawing British combat troops.
	Both initiatives were welcome, although famously the National Security Council did not make the withdrawal decision. Nonetheless, the key policy objective in Afghanistan mirrors that of the Government’s predecessor: Afghanistan should not again become a place from where al-Qaeda and other extremists can attack the UK and British interests.
	Achieving that objective is said to rely on four main goals: a more stable and secure Afghanistan; the conditions for withdrawal of UK combat troops by 2015; an Afghan-led political settlement that represents all Afghan people; and regional political and security co-operation that supports a stable Afghanistan. They were the right objectives then, and they are the right objectives today.
	Some progress is being made on all those fronts. Increasingly, the Afghan army and security forces are taking over control of the districts, troops are beginning to withdraw and there is talk of a political-led settlement, all of which is of course welcome.
	I just wonder whether we need to reassess the policy objectives. The Foreign Affairs Committee received evidence to suggest that the core foreign policy justification for the UK’s continued presence in Afghanistan—that it is in the interests of UK national security—may have been resolved some time ago. There is a big difference between the Taliban, who are locals who want their country back, and al-Qaeda, which is made up of hard-nosed international terrorists. Given the apparently limited strength of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, its desire to continue to use Afghanistan as a base is questionable. The tracking down and shooting of Osama bin Laden adds weight to that argument.
	When the Prime Minister appeared before the Liaison Committee, I asked if he was still receiving intelligence that al-Qaeda in Afghanistan remained a threat to UK national security. He confirmed that it did, and he said the same when I put a similar point to him this afternoon. I said that that poses a dilemma for Parliament. It seems that the justification for Britain’s most important policy initiative is based on an intelligence assessment that has not been subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The ghost of the Iraq war hangs over us. Under the circumstances, I suggest that the intelligence is shown to a committee of Privy Councillors or the Intelligence and Security Committee, which can report to the House on whether it agrees with the assessment.
	In the meantime, the military campaign continues. The Taliban are being pushed back, and so they should be with the firepower ranged against them. However, I question whether they can be defeated militarily. The Foreign Affairs Committee has considerable doubts over whether the international security assistance force’s counter-insurgency campaign is succeeding. We question the fundamental assumption that success in Afghanistan can be achieved through a strategy of clear, hold and build. The Taliban are, at heart, Afghans who resent the presence of occupying forces. It is questionable whether the USA’s full military onslaught on the Taliban is necessary to deny al-Qaeda a place from which to operate. The key thrust of the Committee’s report is that we should encourage ISAF, and the United States in particular, to engage in a political reconciliation process. There is little support outside the United States for continuing the surge started by George Bush and continued by President Obama. The continued military pummelling of the Taliban is, in all certainty, counter-productive in achieving a political settlement.
	The recent announcement by President Karzai that the United States is involved in reconciliation negotiations is a good start. However, talking to the Taliban is not easy. There is no address or phone number, and the hard-liners and the top brass of the Taliban have turned their backs on any reconciliation attempts. None the less, in my judgment there is a split in the Taliban between the hard-liners and the moderates. Those who are most opposed to a political settlement tend to be more on the fringes of the movement—the uneducated and the unemployed. Those who are more focused on the future prosperity of their country are prepared to talk. We should exploit the divisions in the Taliban and engage in the process of reconciliation as soon as possible. The US draw-down of troops will help in that, as will the additional numbers announced by the Prime Minister
	during his visit this week. We have to set the tone and show that there is light at the end of the tunnel for Afghans who want to bring up their children and enjoy the prosperity that we are used to in the western world.
	Combined with that, we must continue to support the Afghan army, police and security services. Huge strides have been made to bring those forces up to a level of competence that will allow them to maintain law and order in their country. There will be a large army and a large police force. The Prime Minister said this afternoon that for every one troop that is withdrawn, two will go in from the Afghan police and security services. Those services have a long way to go to achieve the operational standards that we see elsewhere. The exit of NATO combat troops will not be smooth, and the handover will be fraught with problems, but the sheer size of the Afghan forces should be sufficient to hold the line against the inevitable counter-attack once the occupying forces have left.
	The US draw-down is bigger than expected, and 33,000 troops will have been withdrawn by this time next year. The President of the United States says that the US has crippled al-Qaeda’s capabilities and been successful in its mission in Afghanistan, claiming that Kabul is much safer than it was before despite continued attacks such as the one on the Intercontinental hotel last week.
	Interestingly, the President has been criticised on both sides in Congress, with his opponent in the last presidential election, John McCain, arguing that the current troop levels should be maintained for at least another year to accomplish their objectives. On the other hand, the Democrats have argued that the President has been too timid. The cynic in me says that that probably suggests he has got it about right.
	However, the military do not agree with the President either. We may raise eyebrows here when senior military officers enter the political arena, and we may wish that they would do the fighting while we do the talking, but they have nothing on what has been going on in the United States. Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, quite openly said that he advocated a less aggressive draw-down schedule. General Petraeus, the former head of the armed forces in Afghanistan, who is about to become the director of the CIA, said that he, too, had recommended a more gradual withdrawal. Marine General James Mattis, commander of US central command, who was General Petraeus’s boss and immediate superior, agreed. With friends like that, who needs enemies? I respect the President for his courage in rejecting the arguments of his military and continuing with the draw-down.
	The House should be in no doubt that this is going to be messy. Security incidents in Afghanistan continue, such as the tragic loss of Scott McLaren from the Royal Regiment of Scotland. However, the provinces and urban districts continue to be transferred to Afghan forces, which shows progress towards transition.
	No one likes to engage in talks with an enemy that has been killing one’s own armed forces, and I share the view of Hillary Clinton, who has said that she finds the need to have contact with the Taliban “distasteful, but worthwhile”. It is not a pleasant business, but it is a necessary one. I have no doubt that any negotiations leading to a political settlement must be Afghan-led, despite the Taliban saying that they want to speak
	directly with the United States. So far, top US officials have sidestepped that, and I hope the Government will now encourage them to get more fully involved and get a forum up and running with the full involvement of Afghanistan, the United States and Pakistan.
	Relations with Pakistan are difficult, but if we think we have problems, nothing compares with the US-Pakistan relationship, which is at rock bottom. I have to confess that I am quite shaken by the level of mistrust between Pakistan and the United States. The situation has been exacerbated by the shooting of Osama bin Laden. I personally have no doubt whatever that that was a necessary step for the United States to take, and I quite understand why such sensitive information could not be shared with anybody. As a result, I am quite puzzled by Pakistan’s aggressive reaction and apparent failure to understand why the US did not share the information with it.
	Pakistan has difficult decisions to make. It has deployed troops in Waziristan and the north-west frontier, but my instinct is that its heart is still not in it. Another illustration is the US use of drones, which are fearsome weapons that are turning out to be remarkably effective—so much so that everybody wants them. So why is Pakistan ordering the United States to take its drone bases out of the country?

John Spellar: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Pakistan has suffered huge losses, and at a high level, from the activities of the Taliban and other terrorists? That partly demonstrates its level of commitment.

Richard Ottaway: Yes, which makes it more the mystery why it does not take stronger action against the Taliban. It is not how to get into the hole that counts but how to get out of it, and I believe that Pakistan is still worrying about how it got into the hole. I would encourage it to engage fully and totally in denying the Taliban a base in its own country.
	On the other side of the equation, the US should recognise that Pakistan is a proud and sensitive country. We all admire the US for its can-do attitude and for getting things done, but there comes a moment every now and again when it must think about how others will feel about that, and work with the grain, despite its dominant position on the world stage.
	The UK does have a role in all that. There are now 3 million Pakistanis living in the UK. Our embassy in Islamabad is making every effort, but diplomatic opportunities exist to win Pakistan’s confidence in our genuine desire to help them. Can we help with textile exports or commercially in another way? Can we help it to break down the barriers with India? Above all, we should encourage the US to adopt a policy on Pakistan that takes account of Pakistan’s security concerns, and we should help the US to play a constructive role in the reconciliation process.
	I am under no illusion of the difficulties involved in respect of any of those countries. None the less, the Foreign Affairs Committee commends the UK Government for its advocacy of the regional approach to political reconciliation. Currently, the conditions for political settlement are virtually non-existent, but if ever there was a time to make the effort, it is now.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. There is no formal time limit on Back-Bench speeches, but I have something like nine people on my list, and I am looking to call the Opposition to wind-up at approximately 6.30 pm, so Members can do the arithmetic for themselves. A certain self-restraint would be appreciated.

Paul Flynn: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway). I thank him for, and congratulate him on, the quality of his Committee’s reports, particularly the last report on this subject.
	It was a disappointment to hear the Prime Minister present a statement that was very much the traditional one of unreasonable optimism, of exaggerating the threat of terrorism from the Taliban, which is almost non-existent—there is a threat from al-Qaeda, but not from the Taliban—and of ignoring altogether the most optimistic sign: namely, the possibility of talks with the Taliban.
	We have heard so much accentuating the positives and ignoring the negatives. The Prime Minister spoke of the progress with the Afghan army and police, but said not a word about the fact that NATO delivered the final blow by bringing the helicopter in following the recent attack on the Intercontinental hotel, and made no mention of the group of UN workers who were lynched by a mob, even though they were being protected by the Afghan police and army. Nor did he mention the most depressing incident, when 500 prisoners, many of them Taliban who were captured at grievous cost in blood and treasure, escaped, almost certainly with the collusion of local Afghans. Those 500 are now free to attack our soldiers again.
	I am concerned greatly by our attitude. We are trying to deny the truth and to protect ourselves, but there are no good reasons for that. It is extremely wounding to the families of the bereaved to suggest that the cause in which their loved ones died bravely was a noble but vain one, but we must get that across. The Prime Minister has a difficult task to convince the country that we must not only talk to but negotiate with the enemy. That will be difficult for the relatives or loved ones of the fallen.
	It is disappointing that the Prime Minister did not give a clear answer on the hurt that will be caused if the plan to take the remains of the fallen to Brize Norton continues. They would then be taken via a circuitous route that avoids the most populated areas. Local people, supported by many of the families of the bereaved, say that they want and appreciate the opportunity to give public expression to their grief, as happened in Wootton Bassett. The public would like to pay their respects as they have done before. No impression should be left that there is any attempt by the Government or local people to deny the country the chance to pay its tributes and accept the true effects of war.
	That has been done twice before. Last year on a Monday and a Tuesday, the names of the fallen were announced, but that was at a time when the House did not have the maximum attendance, or the attention focused on it, that it has at Prime Minister’s Question Time when those names are announced. It is impossible now, because of the rules of the House, to do what I
	have done in the past, which is to read out the names of the fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is now forbidden. I would not look forward to doing that again, though, because to read the names of the fallen in Afghanistan and the thousands with serious injuries would take about an hour and a half, if I was to include their ranks and give a suitable pause to each one. None the less, that is the most effective way of getting across to the House the consequences of decisions that we took.
	I was grateful to see the report on Helmand on BBC 2. It is worth remembering that, as has been repeated, politically we went into Helmand because senior politicians believed we would be there for three years and hoped that not a shot would be fired. We are grateful for the evidence given to the Foreign Affairs Committee and to the Public Administration Committee in which we saw the incredibly trivial reasons we went into Helmand. At that point, we had lost two soldiers in combat—five in other regions—but now it is 375. A written report to the FAC attributed it to the hubris of the Foreign Office, which felt that it might suddenly become a footnote. The conflict in Iraq was coming to end and it wanted to be in the limelight. The military use the expression, “We must use them or lose them”, knowing that if their battle groups are suddenly stood down, there is the threat of major cuts in a future defence review.

Thomas Docherty: Although I disagree with my hon. Friend, I have huge respect for his principled stance. However, when the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff came before the Defence Committee only three weeks ago, that was not the reason they gave for the Army going into Helmand. They gave completely different reasons: there was a job that had to be done, and if it was not done by the British, it would fall to one of our partners in the international security assistance force.

Paul Flynn: The evidence is in the reports from both Committees—in evidence from a distinguished former ambassador in Kabul and from two senior people in the civil service to the PAC. The evidence is clear. One witness said that no attention was paid to the national interest. It is difficult to see where on earth the national interest lay in stirring up a hornets’ nest in Helmand, but we know the result. This was a peaceful province. We went in to ensure reconstruction, but the result, tragically, was the loss of an unknown number of lives—possibly 9,000—and there was no reconstruction. Instead there was destruction on a massive scale from collateral damage alone. We set up posts that we defended at huge cost in lives to our own people and to the others.
	This is a calamity on a scale nearly unprecedented in our military history—and that is saying something. When we went in, we did not take a decision in the House, but we had a debate. In that debate, someone said that this would be worse than the charge of the Light Brigade. This time Blair to the left of them, Bush to the right of them, holler’d and thunder’d:
	“Theirs not to reason why,
	Theirs but to do and die:
	Into the valley of Death”,
	into the mouth of Helmand, drove the 5,000. Before, there were two dead; now it is 375. That is three times the number killed in the charge of the Light Brigade and twice the number killed in the Iraq war, and I challenge anyone to come up with any improvements that resulted from the incursion into Helmand. What is better now? It was peaceful when we went in. There was no threat.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to intervene on him again. The Chief of the General Staff, Peter Wall, and the Chief of the Defence Staff made it absolutely clear to the Defence Committee that if we had not gone into Helmand, the Taliban would have moved north towards Kabul. It is completely untrue to say that Helmand was a peaceful province; or rather, it was peaceful only because the Taliban had complete control over the area.

Paul Flynn: I was not present on the Committee, but I saw the sitting on the Parliament channel and was profoundly unimpressed by the evidence given. However, I do not want to dwell on this issue; I want to give other people a chance to speak—I have the advantage of speaking early. I believe that at some point an investigation has to be conducted into why we went into Helmand. Of course it cannot be done now, while we are still there, but I believe that the story revealed will be one of military incompetence and political weakness. We are in the position now—the hopeful time—of talking to the Taliban. I do not know why the Prime Minister does not emphasise this more, but for the first time we are in the position of taking practical steps to build peace that would result in bringing our troops home.
	The alternative is that we are currently in a period like that the Americans found themselves in in 1970 and 1971, when they knew that the war was coming to an end in Vietnam. We know that there is no happy ending in Afghanistan, and we should not build up the prospect of an Afghanistan that will somehow be like a Scandinavian democracy or anything of the sort. The ending will be messy.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for missing the first part of his speech. Does he not think that after 10 years in Afghanistan, the fact that the Prime Minister now says that there has to be negotiations, including with the Taliban—something that has been patently obvious for a long time—is an indication of just what a military and political disaster this whole thing has been?

Paul Flynn: I am sure that that will be the judgment of history. I am afraid that we in this House will be seen as not having taken the decisions that we should either. We have not challenged our continuing presence in Afghanistan or the continual sacrifice of the lives of our brave soldiers. This has been a bad episode in our history. Tragically, just as we saw one rotten Government in Afghanistan brought down in 2001—they were not as rotten as the one before, who included the Mujahedeen—the current Government might well be replaced in five years by another rotten Government, and we will ask ourselves, “What was the sacrifice for?” We are now in the position that General Kerry, now Senator Kerry, described in ’71 when he asked himself the agonising question, “Who will be the last soldier I will order to die for a politician’s mistake?”

John Baron: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), as we have similar views on this issue.
	As those Committee colleagues who are here will know, I voted against this report. It will come as no surprise to the majority of Members present that I come to this afternoon’s debate as a sceptic about our mission generally. Having cautioned against our deployment in Afghanistan and voted against the Government’s continued policy—in the one opportunity that we had to debate and vote on the issue, last year—I remain deeply worried about our progress generally. To reflect briefly on the past, our intervention defied all the lessons of history. We fundamentally underestimated the task and we under-resourced it accordingly. We have been playing catch-up every since. Having served as a platoon commander in South Armagh during the 1980s, I have no doubt that the mission suffered in particular from low troop density levels. We have suffered as a result.
	My criticism is not levelled at the troops. We all know that they have done everything that could have been asked of them. They and we can be proud of what they have achieved. Rather, my criticism is levelled at the US and UK Governments, who have failed because they have not recognised two fundamental distinctions, which even at this late stage could salvage something positive from this otherwise sorry affair. First, we have failed to distinguish between the key objective of keeping al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan and the four main goals on which that objective is said to depend. Those goals include the achievement of a stable and secure Afghanistan. In fact, the key objective and the attainment of those goals have become confused to the extent that the goals have become ends in themselves. This has given rise to mission creep and loss of focus. The talk of nation building, women’s rights and human rights are but three examples. In effect, we have become missionaries instead of focusing on the mission.
	In my view, this confusion permeates the report. For example, the report assesses progress against each of the so-called goals instead of focusing on the key objective. We go into great detail in the report about what we are doing on women’s rights and human rights, for example. The goals are a means to an end, however, not the end in itself. Our main mission in Afghanistan is not to build a better country but to defeat al-Qaeda, and our losing sight of that fact has cost us dearly. That is why I voted against the report, having tried unsuccessfully to make a series of amendments. We are not in Afghanistan to build a better country; we are there to defeat al-Qaeda.
	This confusion of purpose has gone to the top of Government. When the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was Prime Minister, he claimed that our troops were in Afghanistan to protect the citizens of London from terrorism, yet in almost the same sentence he threatened President Karzai with troop withdrawal if he did not end the corruption in his Government. That clearly illustrated the confusion, and I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman in Prime Minister’s questions back in 2008 that those two statements did not fit well together.
	Last year, the coalition Government gave a deadline of 2015 for troop withdrawal. Again, that is inconsistent. If our commitment is conditions-based—in other words,
	if it is to defeat al-Qaeda—one cannot logically place a deadline on it. Yet the Government have made it clear that all combat troops will be withdrawn by the due date, regardless of the situation on the ground. It is therefore little wonder that Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers have admitted that their communications strategy needs to be reviewed, as it appears that Joe Public has still not got the message. Someone should perhaps ask why, after 10 years, the message is somewhat confused. Could it be that the mission itself is incoherent? If that is the case, there is little point in shooting the messenger.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any evidence whatever that the streets of London have been made safer by our presence in Afghanistan? Or does he believe that our involvement has caused radicalisation and perhaps made London a more dangerous place, and that we need to look to our foreign policy if we want to make ourselves secure?

John Baron: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point. I certainly think that our recent aggressive interventions have radicalised parts of the Muslim world against us—a fact that I think was confirmed by a former head of MI5 in giving evidence. I certainly do not think that our involvement has helped our situation, and I see no concrete evidence that the situation has improved in regard to the threat on the streets of London. If I am wrong about that, I am sure that the Minister will correct me.
	The bottom line is that there is confusion of purpose, and the first distinction that we are failing to make is that between achieving the objective and the four main goals.
	The second distinction that the Government are failing to explore rigorously is that between the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The relationship is complex and not well understood. There is no shortage of evidence—some was submitted to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee—to suggest that the Taliban would not necessarily allow al-Qaeda back into the country if the Taliban were to regain control of certain regions. They know that, ultimately, al-Qaeda led to their downfall. Indeed, US intelligence sources suggest that fewer than 100 al-Qaeda fighters and certainly no al-Qaeda bases are left in the country. To all intents and purposes, we have achieved our mission some time ago—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), the Chairman of the Select Committee, made well. We all know that the Taliban are not a homogeneous group, but there are fundamental differences between the Taliban and al-Qaeda—yet the threats from al-Qaeda and the Taliban have become conflated and almost synonymous.

John Spellar: Given the distinctions that the hon. Gentleman is making, why does he think the Taliban allowed al-Qaeda to establish themselves and a base in Afghanistan?

John Baron: The bottom line is that there are various factions of the Taliban, but the relationship between the Taliban and al-Qaeda is very complex and not well understood. I could return the question and ask: how is it that, given that the fundamental differences between the two are clear, we are failing to explore them? At the end of the day, peace is not made with friends but with enemies. We have got to initiate talks.
	These two distinctions—the distinction between the key objective and the four main goals, and the distinction between the Taliban and al-Qaeda—are very important. If we are trying to build a more stable and secure Afghanistan and make it a better country, we will in all probability have to beat the Taliban. If, on the other hand, we are just trying to make sure that Afghanistan is free of al-Qaeda, we might not have to defeat the Taliban. That shows the importance of the two distinctions. What they lead one on to believe is the need for the Americans and the British to open meaningful and non-conditional talks with the Taliban in order to explore common ground.

Thomas Docherty: It is certainly the understanding of the Defence Committee that our role is to place the Afghan national security forces on a footing where they can deal with security. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is not about beating the Taliban, as the mission goal is to get the ANSF to a point where they can take control of their country.

John Baron: In an ideal world I would agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the report makes clear that there are severe doubts about the ability of the Afghan national security forces to take over once we leave, despite all the money and the training that have gone in. The fact that the ANSF could not protect UN personnel in areas that had been handed over and were deemed to be safe illustrates the problem that we face. There is not a uniform view on this matter, as it is worthy of note that there are severe reservations about whether the Afghan security forces will be in a position to take on that role, come the deadline.
	Suggestions have been made that preliminary talks have taken place. This is welcome news. The delisting from UN sanctions of 18 former senior members of the Taliban is perhaps part of that process. However, I have concerns about the substantive nature of these talks. Until very recently, the American view has been that America will talk to the Taliban only if they lay down their arms and accept the constitution. Frankly, that is living in a dream world. The Taliban will not be beaten and they will not lay down their arms.
	History suggests—we could look at counter-insurgency campaigns in Malaya, for example—that not one of the preconditions for a successful counter-insurgency campaign exists in Afghanistan. There is no control of the borders; the troop density levels are insufficient; we do not have the support of the majority of the population; and we certainly do not have a credible Government in place. Not one of the preconditions exists. The Taliban are not going to lay down their arms and simply walk away, particularly now that we have declared our hand with the deadlines.
	I believe that the time has come for the British Government to press the Americans to have non-conditional talks with the Taliban. That is crucial. Just holding preliminary talks will get us nowhere. They have to be non-conditional. We need to remind the Americans that it is possible to talk and fight at the same time, as we proved in Northern Ireland. However, it was the very nature of those talks—the fact that they were unconditional—which played such a key role in bringing the IRA into the peace process. The American wish to
	see the Taliban and al-Qaeda sever all contact must be part of a settlement, rather than a precondition. I believe that the decapitation strikes on the Taliban leadership should end, because there must be a degree of trust in the negotiations. If the last 10 years have shown us anything, they have shown us the Taliban’s ability to replace one generation of leaders with another.
	Given the cost to the United States in blood and treasure, this will not be easy for US politicians. There will be those in the Democratic party who will think about human rights, women’s rights and so forth, and there will be those in the Republican party who will not want to talk to terrorists. At the end of the day, however, holding unconditional talks is the only way forward. Our brave soldiers can only buy time; now it is time for the US politicians to step up to the plate.

Denis MacShane: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). I wish that we had heard from him in earlier years, because his calm and rational approach was very impressive. I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis): his idea of establishing sovereign bases that we should seek to control, but without going out on patrol to have our men killed, is entirely sound. I also look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who has direct experience of the region.
	The plain fact is that this is not a winnable war. I found the Prime Minister’s metaphor about al-Qaeda, or the Taliban, and Sinn Fein rather bizarre and ill-judged; but judgment is not, perhaps, the Prime Minister’s strongest suit at the moment. We are talking about a huge mess: an intervention undertaken for sincere and decent reasons that is now terminating as so many other interventions throughout recent and older history often have. I do not think that we withdrew cleanly from India and Pakistan, from Aden or Cyprus, or from any number of situations. The same could even be said of Northern Ireland. Some might observe that the almost apartheid segregation between Catholic and Protestant communities is hardly a tribute to community and society building in parts of Belfast and Derry.
	The real problem is the eternal question posed by, I think, Lord Salisbury, who said, “If we listen to the generals, we will never be safe.” Clemenceau, 20 years later, said, “War is too important to be left to the generals.” We have allowed our Afghanistan policy to be over-driven and over-controlled by the military: of that there can be no doubt. My hon. Friend from Scotland who is on the Defence Committee quoted the generals who had spoken to the Committee—

Tristram Hunt: All of Scotland!

Denis MacShane: Well, it is nice to have a true Scot here, rather than a nationalist.
	I do not know of any recorded moment when any British general giving evidence to any parliamentary or public inquiry has admitted he got things wrong. It is in their contract that generals are always right. If they are let down, it is the fault of the politicians. Before the election we were told continually by Labour Members that it was the Prime Minister’s fault for not providing
	enough Chinook helicopters and reinforcements, and that Ministers were responsible for the fact that we were not succeeding in Afghanistan. It is a tribute to my colleagues on the Front Bench that they have not adopted those rather shoddy tactics—as some might have been tempted to do—in respect of the handling of the conflict since May last year.

Thomas Docherty: As a member of the Defence Committee and the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, I can tell my right hon. Friend that when the Chief of the Defence Staff and Chief of the General Staff appeared before the Defence Committee, they did put their hands up and say mistakes had been made when going into Helmand. Perhaps that was the first time that that happened, but the Army has admitted it made mistakes.

Denis MacShane: I am glad to hear it, but frankly—I do not want to quote Bismarck and the Balkans and Pomeranian grenadiers—I weep every Wednesday when the poor Prime Minister has to come to the Dispatch Box and yet again read out the name, or perhaps names, of a dead British soldier, and for what? I cannot find an answer to that question.
	To give the Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), and his colleagues their due, they admit that, because one of their report’s key conclusions, on page 83, is that
	“at a strategic level, we seriously question whether the efforts expended…have a direct connection to the UK’s core objective, namely the national security of the UK”.
	That is absolutely right; the Select Committee Chairman has summed it up there—it is written down. It is a Foreign Affairs Committee conclusion, and it should be at the forefront of all of our discussions on Afghanistan. There is no longer any connection between UK national security and our men going out on patrol and being shot dead by the Taliban.
	The Select Committee’s excellent and thorough report contains an account of a fine passage of questioning, which resulted in a most extraordinary confession by the Foreign Secretary. Committee members were trying to find out who is actually taking decisions on Afghanistan, and specifically in this instance the announcement to withdraw—or retreat—by 2015. Please can we avoid the absurd new euphemism of “draw-down”? It is a retreat and a withdrawal; that is what it is, so let us revert to plain English. The Foreign Secretary said that that decision was taken collectively in the National Security Council. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) asked whether the Defence Secretary had been consulted, and the Foreign Secretary replied:
	“I am sure the Defence Secretary was consulted, but I cannot tell you when everybody was consulted. You would have to ask the Prime Minister.”
	The Committee Chairman asked whether the Foreign Secretary could confirm
	“that the decision wasn’t actually made in the Council.”
	The Foreign Secretary said:
	“It wasn’t a formal item in the National Security Council.”
	This gives a fascinating insight into the mechanism of government. Where was the decision taken—by whom and how? We know it was no longer taken on a sofa, but
	we are none the wiser—
	[Interruption.] 
	I have not been invited to No. 10 so I cannot check whether the sofa has gone. We do not know who took the decision and on what terms.
	I would argue that we should be getting out a lot faster. Canada is out, the Netherlands is out, and Belgium is pulling out half of its men. The presence of international security assistance force-NATO allies in Afghanistan is now getting thinner and thinner, and, yes, it will be a withdrawal. No general wants to be the one who folds up the flag, climbs the ladder to the top of the embassy building and climbs in a helicopter and leaves, but stopping a war is, perhaps, as great a military art as starting one.
	It would be fascinating to look at the official record of the Russian Duma for the 1980s, when the Russians were convinced that they were bringing a civilising mission to Afghanistan, to see whether debates such as this one were taking place. Then, of course, they faced the external foe of the Mujaheddin paid for by President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. There has been little reference to the fact that the Mujaheddin of the 1980s was a product of western foreign policy. We have heard in the past couple of days that Mr Reagan won the cold war, and part of that winning presumably included the driving of the Soviet Union and its troops out of Afghanistan. If that was the case, every Russian would wish that Mr Reagan had won it a lot earlier; they perhaps believe that the red army should never have gone into Afghanistan. However, the money sent by the west to create the Mujaheddin sowed dragons’ teeth that turned into dragons on 9/11 and 7/7, and it would be good if the people examining the history of that era had the honesty to say so.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that after Soviet forces went into Afghanistan there was a considerable number of unreported demonstrations by the families of soldiers who had died there, and that there is a huge memorial movement within Russia today on behalf of those who are still not recognised for the sacrifices they made?

Denis MacShane: Yes, indeed. That conflict contributed to the undermining of the Soviet Union, but in the very worst sense, in that it required the senseless sacrifice of a lot of young Russian men finally to persuade Mr Gorbachev and his new Soviet leaders that the action in Afghanistan had to come to an end. In some ways, I wish that we had been able to defeat communism in Vietnam, because the period after the retreat of the United States was a horribly cruel one in Vietnam—we saw what happened with the boat people, the re-education camps and the killings and tortures. But there was no question of our remaining longer in the vain hope that we could have created a more stable, orderly or democratic regime.
	The Select Committee’s report stated:
	“We welcome the Government’s attempt to engage more pro-actively”—
	I never know what that adverb means—
	“with parliamentarians on Afghanistan.”
	That might interest the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I understand that a new poem is doing the rounds there. It goes as follows, “From Kandahar to Kabul, the whispers grow and grow, stand by Pashtuns
	and Tajiks, here comes Mr Speaker Bercow.” We will see whether our Speaker is going to be the magic solution and whether he will be sent down there to spread lightness and parliamentary tolerance among the peoples of Afghanistan. I do not think that anybody can move a immediate amendment and call a Division on that subject
	—[Interruption.]
	Perhaps one of his deputies would be more appropriate.
	When I talk about “the west” I mean the broad family of democracies—north America, Europe, and our friends in Canada, Australia, Japan and South Korea. As long as the west is mired in Afghanistan, we will not be able to promote our core interest now, which is to recover economic strength and to recover confidence in the need to have an adequate security profile against the rise of authoritarian powers, which are arming fast, which might, at some stage, threaten our interests and which, because we are lost in the wildernesses of west Asia, we are unable to see coming over the horizon.
	In the few years after America withdrew from Vietnam things were unclear, but for the 20 years after 1980 America led the world in many ways. It did so economically, in inventing new forms of technology and in expanding many human freedoms to do with personal liberty and respect for multicultural and multi-ethnic cohabitation. Right now, America is bogged down in this wretched war. The UK is a minor ally of America and the sooner we are out of this war, the better. I sincerely say to those on the Treasury Bench that if they look at history, they will find that it has very often been the Conservative party that has had a greater sense of geopolitical reality than some of the opposing parties and has known when enough was enough. I would like us out before 2015.
	Finally, the title of the report we are debating is “The UK’s foreign policy approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan”. It is very detailed on Afghanistan, and I congratulate the Committee on that, but it does not in any way address foreign policy towards Pakistan. Pakistan hardly gets a mention and is seen only in relation to Afghanistan. That might be the way in which the title of the report was chosen—I am not criticising the members of the Committee—but we need a policy on Pakistan and part of that must involve telling the truth to our great friends in India. As long as they have 500,000 people in an oppressive occupation of part of the region—I am choosing my words carefully—called Kashmir, there will be no possibility that the people or the Government and military of Pakistan, however constituted, will not see that as a direct threat to their identity and national interest. If 500,000 armed soldiers are camped on a country’s western border, that is where that country will have to put its troops.
	Until we ask India to take a new approach to Kashmir and to take it off one of the world’s fault lines, we will not be in any position to ask Pakistan to take a new and more helpful approach on Afghanistan or on other issues. The western world, if I might use that term—the Euro-Atlantic world, let us say—has spent too long in majority Muslim countries creating giant armies. Whatever the motives for sending those armies originally, they are making matters worse. It is time to get out. I want to spare the Prime Minister, with his many problems, from ever again having to stand at that Dispatch Box to lament the loss of a British soldier’s life in a conflict of which we should no longer be part.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are running out of time and I have eight Members wishing to speak. I want to get everybody in, so will Members be courteous to each other and try to limit the length of their speeches?

Malcolm Rifkind: It would be foolish for anyone to suggest that NATO had not made foolish mistakes with regard to Afghanistan in recent years, or that the matter will come to a conclusion in the way that would have been hoped. It is equally unwise, however, for the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) to suggest that the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan will simply constitute a retreat, or for the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) to say that the whole presence in Afghanistan has been an unqualified failure.
	Let me go back to the point that the House was reminded of by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron): we went into Afghanistan to ensure that the country could not be used again as a base by the Taliban. One only has to ask whether it was ever possible or realistic in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 for us not to have seen international action, given the Taliban’s refusal to deny sanctuary to al-Qaeda as a continuing base for terrorist operations at that time. The decision made at that time, with the unqualified approval of the United Nations Security Council, was the right one, and we should never lose sight of that fact. Mistakes have been made since then, as my hon. Friend has rightly pointed out, but the question today is not whether it was all a mistake but how we can maintain what has already been achieved.
	I agree with those on both sides of the House who have said that al-Qaeda is now effectively out of Afghanistan. It is no longer able to use that country as a base, so there is no long-term rationale for the presence of combat troops there. That does not mean, however, that the matter is now entirely resolved. The question now is: how do we leave in a way that will not enable al-Qaeda to return? At the moment, we do not know whether by the time we leave there will be a coalition Government including the Taliban, or peace in Afghanistan—in which case we can be relatively relaxed that there will be no future for al-Qaeda there. It is equally possible either that the Taliban will not agree to a coalition Government and that we will leave without their being part of a joint agreement, or that they will be part of a coalition but will have their own agenda, which will be one that will not give us comfort.
	Although I welcomed what the Prime Minister said today and have no difficulties with it so far as it went, it seemed to me that it left open certain serious gaps. He said that as far as the Government are concerned, our future relationship with Afghanistan after the withdrawal of our ground forces will be based on our diplomatic, developmental and trade relationships. He said that the only military dimension would be the support we would give to the development of a military academy. All of that is very sensible and desirable, but we have to ask about something that is not just a British problem, but primarily a problem for the United States. How can we help to ensure that an Afghan Government who may not have full control of all the territory of Afghanistan
	when we have withdrawn will be able to prevent the use of parts of the country that they might be unable to control, even with their fullest efforts, as a base for terrorist operations?
	I believe that the international community, including Russia and China, should be arguing for two things. First, we should be asking for the basis of the withdrawal of combat forces to lead also to an agreement with the Afghan Government, because this can happen only with their support and agreement, and preferably to a treaty sanctified by the United Nations, for the continuing facility of air support for the Afghan Government if that should prove necessary. If there are areas of Afghanistan that the Government do not control, and if there is evidence that those areas have been infiltrated by al-Qaeda, we should have the legal authority—in co-operation with the Afghan Government and through the use of special forces and other means—to eliminate that threat if and when it arises.
	We must remember that when the Taliban Government were eliminated, that was done not by NATO ground forces but by air power combined with Afghan Northern Alliance ground forces. In exactly the same way, at the end of current operations when all of our combat troops are withdrawn, having Afghan ground forces, which will be very strong, with the back-up of potential air support and the potential deployment of special forces purely to deal with terrorist threats, will be the way to provide the long-term security that the right hon. Member for Rotherham seemed to doubt would be available.
	In the light of your comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall keep my comments very brief, but there is a second proposal that should also be part of the international response. We know that Russia and China are just as concerned about a premature withdrawal from Afghanistan as NATO or the west might be—for obvious reasons, given their own domestic and internal problems. What is needed for Afghanistan, as part of that country’s future, is an internationally recognised declaration of neutrality. Afghanistan should become a neutral state, rather in the way that Austria became a neutral state in 1955 as a way of ensuring the withdrawal of the Soviet forces from that country and the ability of that country to develop in peace. Austria is now in a situation very different from that of Afghanistan. Only by having regional support for an independent Afghanistan that cannot give sanctuary to terrorist forces will we have the level of confidence that we need to produce the desired result.

Denis MacShane: I am conscious that others want to speak, but may I gently put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, for whom I have immense respect when it comes to foreign affairs, that China and the Kremlin might not be totally unhappy to see America and the west bogged down as badly as we are in Afghanistan?

Malcolm Rifkind: For other reasons, the right hon. Gentleman might be right, but we are not going to get bogged down because there will be a withdrawal of NATO forces. The Russians have said publicly, through the Foreign Minister, that a premature NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan would be a disaster, so they are obviously concerned about the power vacuum that could result.
	I believe that the real concern—this goes back to the struggles that there have been over Afghanistan for 150 to 200 years—is about Afghanistan’s future status. Of course the Russians and the Chinese will not wish to see Afghanistan as some American client state—why should they?—but there is no need for that to happen. It should not happen, and it must not be allowed to happen. Equally, Afghanistan will not be strong enough to defend itself without maximum international regional support from its neighbours—not just Russia and China, but India, Pakistan and Iran, all of which have an interest in the situation, and all of which could live with a truly neutral Afghanistan that was not the client state of any of the big powers.
	We must not see the withdrawal of combat forces as the end of international military involvement. I hope that it will be, but there has to be a fall-back position if a terrorist threat re-emerges. The real solution is a combination of a treaty arrangement with the Afghan Government combined with an international status for Afghanistan, which the Afghan Government would welcome; they have already said that they would be interested in and attracted by such a proposal. That would give the kind of political and military security that ought to give confidence.

John Baron: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best way of achieving progress in talks with the Taliban is to make those talks unconditional?

Malcolm Rifkind: I do not have any privileged information, but I am pretty certain that they already are. Whatever the formal public position, there is no doubt that talks are going on and that Americans have been involved in discussions with the Taliban. I bet that they were not simply discussing what the agenda would be or what preconditions would apply. It is a slow steady process, and I am sure that it has begun. It should have begun some time ago, and I hope that it leads to progress, but we cannot assume that it will do so. Even with the best will on our part, there is no certainty that the Taliban will wish to co-operate. They may think that they can win without such an agreement, so we have to have a structure in place, both internationally and among western countries, that takes into account all the possibilities, including the Taliban not being willing to co-operate.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution. I had not planned to speak, but having listened to speeches from Government and Opposition Members, I felt compelled to bring some sanity to our discussions.
	I am a member of the Select Committee on Defence, and I have decided not to read the report by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs because, as the House will know, we are producing our own report on Afghanistan and I thought that it might prejudice our inquiry—although I accept that there is probably a debate to be had about why two august Select Committees are doing reports on the same subject almost at the same time.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), who has left the Chamber, discussed, in a speech that did not just span 40 years but which seemed to go on for 40 years, the art of stopping the
	war. Perhaps I am being naive, but the way to do that is by winning the war, not by pulling out because we do not particularly like how it is going in the short term. I am slightly confused because I found myself agreeing more than would normally be the case with the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who offered a great deal of common sense on the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
	The Defence Committee had the opportunity to visit the United States a couple of months ago, and we spent a week or so at various locations, including US Central Command, the Pentagon and Norfolk. We were privileged to visit the Walter Reed hospital, where we met a number of what the Americans call wounded warriors—their very brave men and women who have suffered life-changing injuries. The Committee was overwhelmed not just by the courage and sacrifice of those very young men and women but by the fact that many of them were determined, despite the horrific injuries that they had suffered, to go back to Afghanistan, both to be with their comrades in arms and because they genuinely believed, despite what they had been through, that it was a fight worth having. If they did not see it through, the sacrifices that they and their friends had made would have been for naught. I was humbled by our meeting with those brave men and women.
	On our visit we also met General Mattis and General Allen, with whom the Foreign Affairs Committee and others in the House will be familiar. It is fair to say that we were pleased when President Obama announced that General Allen would succeed General Petraeus as commander in Afghanistan. If there is a lesson from the past 10 years, it is that continuity of command is crucial. There is no point in changing senior personnel and strategy every two or three years, whether in the military or in political leadership, and I hope that the Prime Minister will think carefully before he makes any moves in the next three years while the job moves towards completion.
	I am uncomfortable with the Prime Minister’s statement this afternoon about withdrawal. There is an inconsistency in his logic. On the one hand he talked about conditions and progress, but he gave an arbitrary unilateral date of 31 December 2014, which sets a calendar against which the Taliban can measure progress. We should withdraw because the conditions allow us to do so, and because we have completed the missions on which we set out.

Robert Smith: I share the hon. Gentleman’s general concern about an arbitrary time line, but if the US has set an arbitrary time line, given how dependent we are on the Americans’ scale of operation there, surely we have little choice but to match their arbitrary time line.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I shall respond briefly to it. It is not often that I say this, but the US has been more nuanced than we have. It is not something that the Americans do particularly well, and I am not sure that many of them can spell the word, but they have said that although that is their goal and they are beginning to pull out their surge troops, they are not absolutely committed to their end date.
	There is a simple hypothetical question that the House may wish to consider: what if, as we get to the end of 2014, President Karzai says to President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron, who I expect will still be Prime Minister at that point, “We’re almost there but we need another six weeks, or another two months”? My understanding is that President Obama has made it clear that there would be an element of flexibility. Our Government have said that there is absolutely no flexibility. I think we need a plan B, and we need to have an element of flexibility built in, so that if it is a matter of extra weeks, or even a couple of months, a small number of combat troops may stay.

John Hemming: I share some concerns about the current strategy. Given that the support for the Taliban is, to some extent, a reaction to the presence of occupying forces, what would the hon. Gentleman define as completion?

Thomas Docherty: As I said earlier, completion of the mission is training up the Afghan national security forces to the level of troops and police that can take forward their own security. It is not about defeating the Taliban. It is about leaving Afghanistan in a stable condition.

Martin Horwood: There have been some fascinating contributions to the debate, not least the eloquent and expert contribution by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind).
	I start by doing what many others have done in the Chamber many times, but is still worth doing—paying tribute to our armed forces and, in particular, to those who have lost their lives. I would like to make special mention of Colour Serjeant Kevin Fortuna, who went to school in my constituency and who lost his life not that long ago in Afghanistan. I do not think that he died in vain. The presence of Colour Serjeant Fortuna and many others helps to achieve the central aim of our presence in Afghanistan, which is to protect the security of this country, but has also increased the chances of Afghanistan being a more stable and peaceful country at some stage in the future. If it is not a perfect democracy, that was never one of the core aims of our intervention.
	That is why I am slightly puzzled by some elements of the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report. It makes a couple of highly controversial claims. It states that the core justification of the UK presence, which was the threat posed to national security by al-Qaeda in particular, was removed some time ago, but somewhat contradictorily, it suggests that the security situation is still precarious. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington made exactly the right answer to that, which was that even if that was true, and even if al-Qaeda has been massively damaged in its capacity to regain control of Afghanistan, we still have to find a way of extricating ourselves from the position we are in now in a way that maximises the Afghan Government and society’s chances of stability and peace. We cannot simply walk out.
	The report also suggests that there were wider secondary aims that have now proved unachievable, one of which was the defeat of the Taliban. Again, I am not sure that that was ever one of the core aims. The idea was to increase the capacity of the Afghan national security
	forces to contain and manage the security situation themselves. That is still an important aim as we proceed through withdrawal.
	Rather paradoxically, the report goes on to query the 2015 deadline for withdrawal, but accepts that it has concentrated minds. That is an important function of deadlines, but in some ways the debate has moved on, especially after the Prime Minister’s announcement earlier today of further troop reductions. Quite a few hon. Members have pointed out the hard-headed realism that is needed, and the fact that we are not in a leadership position in Afghanistan—a role that effectively falls to the Americans, as we have only one 10th the number of forces that they have there. That leadership will inevitably pass at some stage to the Afghan Government and the people themselves. Therefore, the troop reductions that the Prime Minister announced today are not only right but inevitable.
	Political reconciliation ought to be part of the process that we encourage as the withdrawal takes place, which is something that liberals and democrats might find difficult to accept. Would we have wanted political reconciliation with our enemies in previous wars? Has political reconciliation worked everywhere else it has been tried—in Zimbabwe, for example? If we support democracy, should we not defend it at all costs and recognise that there are non-Pashtun political leaders in Afghanistan who really do not want reconciliation with the Taliban at this stage?
	I think that there is a role for political reconciliation if some of the points made in the report and elsewhere are acknowledged, including the importance of recognising the regional context and finding a solution that takes into account not only Pakistan and Iran, but India and Russia, and approaches the region on a wider scale. It should also encourage a political solution that recognises the complexity and diversity of Afghan society, its highly tribal structure and perhaps the need for less control from Kabul and a more decentralised approach. In that situation, such an approach to political reconciliation might be, as the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) described it, distasteful but worthwhile. It might not be successful, but in a regional context and with an attention to complexity and diversity, it might become more likely.
	The UK’s role must be to support development, and preferably not just in militarily volatile areas, to support the institutions of government and society—such support ought to be, if anything, increasing—and to do whatever we can to embed universal human rights in Afghan politics and society, especially the rights of women, while accepting that ultimately that will not be our job, and that those responsibilities will have to pass to the Afghans themselves.
	We have to encourage the same thing in the border areas of Pakistan. I commend to the Minister an extraordinary report that recently landed on my desk, produced by an organisation called the Community Appraisal and Motivation Programme, which I am happy to say is funded by the British high commission. That extremely revealing report explores in great detail opinions in the federally administered frontier tribal areas of Pakistan. It shows that there is, unfortunately, a high degree of hostility to British and American policy, but far from universal support for extremist or Salafist militancy. Of the respondents, 42% identified
	terrorist attacks as the main threat to life, 57% said suicide bombing was never justified, and there was support for military operations by the Pakistani army. The BBC World Service was rated highly as a source of information, and the same kind of attention was given to issues such as education and schools as we would expect to find among people all over the world.

Rehman Chishti: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Horwood: I cannot, because of the time and because I am drawing my remarks to a close.
	We must have a realistic approach, but in some senses a more optimistic one, that accepts that the whole debate on Afghanistan is moving into a different phase, but in which we are still determined to support the stability and peace of Afghan society.

Rory Stewart: We are leaving, and that is a very difficult and painful fact. We are not leaving entirely, but we are leaving combat operations, as the Prime Minister has made clear. It is the correct decision, but it has troubling implications, because the underlying logic is that we will cease combat operations by the end of 2014 even if human rights are not established, even if al-Qaeda is not defeated and even if the Taliban are not defeated. Why is this difficult? It is difficult because the military, both in the United States and in the United Kingdom, fundamentally do not agree.
	I have calculated that I have been in and out of Afghanistan 57 times since 2001, and consistently every general has said, “It’s been a tough situation but we have a new strategic plan requiring new resources, and this year will be the decisive year.” It was said in 2003 by General McNeill; General Barno said in 2004 said that that would be the decisive year; General Abizaid also said 2004 would be the decisive year; 2005 was described by General Richards, now Chief of the Defence Staff, as the crunch year for the Taliban; 2006 was described by General McNeill, returning, as the decisive year; 2007 was described by General McKiernan as the decisive year; at the end of 2008, General Stanley McChrystal said that they were knee-deep into the decisive year, and this was echoed by General Petraeus in 2009; our former Foreign Secretary described 2010 as the decisive year; and 2011 was described by Guido Westerwelle, the German Foreign Minister, as the decisive year.
	Why is it difficult to challenge the military orthodoxy? It is difficult for real and moving reasons. It is difficult because we have lost a lot of people—we have lost a lot of lives and spent a lot of money; it is difficult because we have made promises to the Afghan people; and it is difficult because we have developed great fears about Afghanistan, fears about our own national security, fears about Pakistan and fears about our credibility and reputation in the world.
	Therefore, when a politician meets a general with a row of medals on his chest, coming in and saying, “Just give me another two years”—exactly what General Petraeus is saying at the moment—“don’t drop the troop levels, and we can guarantee that we will reach a situation where the Taliban will never be able to come back,” it is very difficult to disagree.
	Withdrawing is the most difficult thing. In Vietnam, and in Afghanistan for the Soviet Union, more troops were lost after the decision to withdraw than in the entire period leading up to the decision. By 1968, the United States had come out of an election determined to withdraw from Vietnam, and Henry Kissinger was obsessed, as we are now, with a political settlement with the enemy. He begged the North Vietnamese to give him the political terms that would allow him to withdraw with honour.
	After Gorbachev made the decision to leave Afghanistan in 1986, more Soviet troops were committed to a surge and more Soviet troops were killed, because of the real problems of fear, credibility and loss. So the Prime Minister is absolutely right to set a firm date for withdrawal.
	Let us hope that by the end of 2014 we have achieved the things that we are looking for. Let us hope—I, too, join in this hope—that the Taliban have been defeated, that al-Qaeda can never again come back, that human rights have been established, that the Afghan Government are credible, effective and legitimate, that the Afghan national army and police are able to look after themselves, and that there is no risk from Pakistan.
	Let us hope. I fear that those things may not be achievable, but we need to have the courage to go ahead regardless at the end of 2014. We need to have the courage to say that we must leave at the end of 2014 regardless because—this is the very difficult thing to say—we no longer believe that we are likely to achieve those objectives. If we have not achieved those objectives by the end of 2014 and the general comes back, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) suggests, and says, “Just give me another two weeks,” or, “Just give me another two months, it’s all going to be fine,” in the end we have to say no.
	Why do we not say no? We do not say no because it is horrible—because if I were to stand up in this House, for example, and say, “Afghanistan matters, but there are other countries that matter more,” that, “If we are worried about terrorism, Pakistan is more important,” and that, “If we are worried about regional stability, Egypt is more important,” there would immediately be a headline, perhaps in The Sun, declaring “MP says Afghanistan doesn’t matter.” A flag-draped coffin would be produced, and the mother of a veteran would step forward and say, “The suggestion is that they died in vain.”
	I met the same situation last week, talking to Afghanistan veterans. A man sitting in the front row was missing both his legs, and somebody in the audience said, “Are you suggesting that we have made no progress? Have you not acknowledged what we have done in Helmand? Have you not seen that the bazaar is now open? Are you suggesting that people died in vain?” We have to learn to say that no single soldier dies in vain, regardless. The courage, commitment and honour of our soldiers is connected to their unit and their regiment, not to the fantasies of politicians. We must pay them every form of honour and respect, but we do not honour dead soldiers by piling more corpses on top of them.
	To conclude, it is difficult for Britain to lead a withdrawal from Afghanistan. We need to make it something that acknowledges that Britain’s pride and reputation has never been connected with extreme ideological projects.
	We are not a nation of crusades or great ideological wars, but a nation characterised by scepticism, pragmatism and deep country knowledge. If we get the withdrawal right, it will not go down in history as a symbol of ignorance or cowardice, but will represent our wisdom and our courage in sticking to the decision. There should be a realisation that our motto should be and must remain, “Passionate moderation”.

Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) has been to Afghanistan on 57 occasions, as he told us. That is 56 occasions more than me. Nevertheless, I have a few ideas about campaigning there. When faced with a deadly insurgency, one has three options: to counter it, contain it or quit. We have been trying to counter it and now we are going to quit. It seemed to be the nub of my hon. Friend’s eloquent contribution that those are the only two alternatives.
	I believe that NATO’s Afghan strategy has a fatal flaw: the knowledge that however effective our efforts may be, we plan to quit. That signals to the Taliban that they will ultimately win and removes their incentive to negotiate the political deal that we all agree is what must end an insurgency. President Obama and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have set a time limit for the current surge. British troops, as we have heard many times today, will no longer fight after 2014. By then, the Afghans should be self-sufficient. That is the theory, but as we all know, the key question is, “What if they are not?”
	Is there a third way to be found between full-scale counter-insurgency campaigning, which is what the generals have been doing all along, and total withdrawal when the deadlines are reached? In other words, instead of countering or quitting, should we be containing? Some say, and I have heard it said this afternoon, that the long-term use of special forces will be enough by itself to underpin a post-surge Afghan Government. That seems to me inherently improbable. As I have argued before, and as I continue to argue—completely unavailingly in the United Kingdom, but perhaps with a degree more resonance on the other side of the Atlantic—what is required when the surge concludes is a strategic base and bridgehead area, or SBBA, to secure our strategic needs permanently.
	There are only two sound reasons for NATO’s military presence in Afghanistan: to prevent the country from being used again as a base, training ground or launch-pad for terrorist attacks, which has been mentioned many times today, and to assist next-door Pakistan in preventing any possibility of its nuclear weapons falling into the hands of al-Qaeda or its imitators, which I do not believe has been mentioned today. The following three objectives, though desirable, are not adequate reasons for our presence in Afghanistan: the creation of a tolerant and democratic society, the prevention of drug production, and the advancement of the human rights of women. Full-scale counter-insurgency campaigning, often referred to as war down among the people, involves micro-management of the threatened society. As such, it enables the pursuit of worthy goals such as those. By contrast, a strategic base and bridgehead area cannot secure such goals, but it can achieve both of our genuine strategic interests. During the period of grace provided
	by the surge deployment, an existing base area should be selected, or a new one constructed, in a remote area out of sight and largely out of mind of the Afghan population.
	It is often said—in fact, I have lost count of the number of times it has been said—that there can be no purely military solution in Afghanistan, and that eventually a political deal must be done. Yet there is no basis for such a deal under our existing strategy. The deadlines for scaling down and ending our military presence will certainly put pressure on the Afghan Government to compromise with reconcilable elements of the Taliban, but they will have the opposite effect on the insurgents. The creation of an impregnable, long-term SBBA would enable pressure to be applied equally on both sides, and would confer many benefits, which I will summarise very briefly.
	First, any return of international terrorists could be punished without having to re-invade the country. Secondly, any assistance needed by the Pakistan Government to secure its nuclear arsenal could be provided via the long-term strategic base. Thirdly, NATO would be almost completely disengaged from Afghan society, thus removing the constant irritant of a uniformed infidel presence in the towns and countryside.
	Fourthly, the ending of micro-management would do away with the need to send service personnel out on vulnerable patrols, along predictable routes, which can easily be targeted. Fifthly, the balance of political and military forces in Afghanistan would be allowed to find its own level. If the worst happened and the Taliban took over, we would still have the strategic base and bridgehead area as a safeguard. Sixthly, the prospect of an SBBA would make it more likely that the Taliban would reach a deal with the Government. If the eventual outcome were nevertheless a more radical regime than NATO would like, that would be a matter for the Afghans alone as long as they offered no support to international terrorists. Finally, an SBBA could be garrisoned by as many or as few service personnel as the political and military situation dictated. Too remote to attack, it would be a deterrent to extremism and a bridgehead for easy entry and operations if, regrettably, they become necessary under a policy of containment.
	It suits al-Qaeda to embroil us in Muslim states, as it did most calculatedly in Afghanistan in September 2001. That was why, 48 hours before the attacks in America, General Massoud was assassinated by al-Qaeda. It wanted us to, and knew perfectly well that we would, respond by invading Afghanistan. That was why it removed him.
	Costly counter-insurgency cannot be our answer every time our enemies establish a presence in a different country; but there is an alternative to the extremes of micro-management, which is what we have been doing, and total withdrawal, which is what we say we are going to do next. That alternative is containment, and the means of doing it is a strategic base and bridgehead area.

Neil Carmichael: It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). I agree completely with my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) in recognising that we need a definite date for withdrawal.
	I wish to pay tribute to Rifleman Martin Lamb, who recently died. He was a constituent of mine who was serving his country bravely and correctly, and we remember him appropriately.
	The next person whom I wish to mention is my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), because I agree that it is very important for us to consider the international approach. It is what we do next that matters, and we need to prepare the ground now. I want to talk briefly about the Helsinki accords, the process that they led to and the process of getting to them, and see where the parallels might be with the situation in the region that we are discussing today.
	Very bravely, Gerald Ford signed those accords as President of the United States when neither he nor the idea of détente were at their most popular in the US. Nevertheless, off he went to complete the process, which involved 35 states. Many had views that were not consistent with one another, and many had a huge number of reasons to disagree with their neighbours.
	Three baskets of themes were captured in those accords, the first of which was security. The idea was to give other member states the confidence that their military position and security issues would be treated fairly and justly. That would be achieved largely by states notifying one another what would happen.
	The second basket was politics and the production of good governance—we should remember the governance of some of those states at that time, and certainly, for example, Romania. Good governance was an important part of the Helsinki accords, but it is also an element that we need to deliver in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
	The third basket was culture and human rights. Oddly enough, the third basket turned out to be the most influential. Many commentators will now say that the Helsinki accords suggested to repressed people in those 35 states—obviously, I am talking in the main about eastern Europe—that we would give them the comfort and space to develop their interest in having human rights.
	If we extend those three baskets, and in particular the third one, to Afghanistan, Pakistan and—critically—their other neighbours, we could engage them in a way that gives shape to their security and traction to better governance, and that starts to equip their people with the idea that they have space to develop their human rights. That model—it cannot be exactly the same as that of 30 or 40 years ago—could be a framework for international co-operation and for involving the various states that we need to involve. That is the kind of thing that would be of interest as we move towards a new phase of politics.

Martin Horwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Neil Carmichael: I would prefer not to, but if the hon. Gentleman is quick, I will.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it may apply in unexpected areas. One of the points made by the Community Appraisal and Motivation Programme report, which I cited earlier, is that the frontier areas of Pakistan have never been fully integrated into Pakistani democratic politics. In
	effect, they still have the post-British colonial style of military administration. That has isolated people in those areas from mainstream politics, and indeed from the enjoyment of full human rights of the kind that he is describing.

Neil Carmichael: That is exactly right. Another interesting thing about the Helsinki accords is that, oddly enough, they recognised frontiers that had not been properly recognised before. The accords also enabled those frontiers to be changed through peaceful means. Funnily enough, that mechanism was used by the two German states that were unified in 1990. That is a parallel of what the hon. Gentleman says, although the situation is not precisely the same.
	We should go down that route and look at the processes that were involved in the accords. We should ask who would participate and how far the region would extend. My belief is that it should be pretty big, and that we should think in terms of 20 or more states in the area. The UK, the US, and Russia and China ought to be involved in the process too.
	That is a big project and it will not happen overnight—it will not happen very quickly at all. Most people would recognise that the Helsinki accords took an awful long time to produce anything, but produce something they did. The process worked. It enabled nation states to start understanding one another, to build better governance, and above all, to respect and promote human rights. That is the basis on which we should start, and it would be interesting to see how such a process unfolds if we develop that policy.

Stephen Gilbert: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) because, in putting human rights at the heart of the long-term stability of Afghanistan, he touched on an issue that I raised with the Prime Minister earlier today about the preconditions that we might put not on talks—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) that talks should be open and without conditions—but on power sharing.
	The Afghanistan operation was legitimatised by the United Nations and was in this country’s national interest. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), I pay tribute to the 375 members of our armed forces who have lost their lives in that part of the world. This country has spent billions of pounds on the operation and committed itself to the mission in that region for more than a decade. That gives value to the nation’s overall commitment to delivering both our security and a better future.
	The Foreign Affairs Committee report makes it clear that UK operations and those of the international community have led to some tactical successes on the ground, but the situation overall remains precarious. The military surge has no doubt played a key part in that, but it is not sufficient. The Prime Minister was right when he said today that we now need a political surge. That political surge should be Afghan-led, however. It is right that initial conversations are being had with the Taliban. However, when we look to a future of
	power sharing, rather than just negotiation, it is right that we ask ourselves: what are our red lines on women’s rights? What are our red lines on minority rights within Afghanistan? Are we going to ensure that any Afghan Government that includes the Taliban maintains freedom of worship and continues to develop democracy within its borders?
	The repudiation of violence is, of course, the first step to legitimising the Taliban, but it is not the only step that they need to take and it should not be the only line that the UK Government should push in discussions. We owe it to those 375 members of our armed forces to ensure that we deliver in Afghanistan the kind of environment that we ourselves would want to live in.

Paul Flynn: The hon. Gentleman has described in these red lines an Afghanistan that never existed in the past 2,000 years. Is there not a great danger that our beliefs and our aim of securing these rights are so unobtainable that they will delay the peace process?

Stephen Gilbert: The Afghan constitution enshrines those rights. I am not seeking anything more or less than what is already in that constitution. I simply want to ensure that we do not move backwards by involving in the government of Afghanistan parties that might seek to go back rather than forwards.

Martin Horwood: My hon. Friend is making many important points. In response to the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), is it not the case that if the Arab spring, the Arab awakening, has taught us anything, it is that these universal human rights and aspirations are present in every population? It is slightly patronising to regard them as inappropriate for some countries, even in places where we know that a perfect liberal democracy is not going to emerge in the short term.

Stephen Gilbert: As always, my hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point. I have spoken in the House several times about the hope that the Arab spring is delivering to generations of people who have been excluded from the rights that we take for granted.
	As the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) disappeared into Vietnam, you might forgive me for mentioning Iraq briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker. We failed in Iraq; we made fundamental mistakes: de-Ba’athification, disarmament of the local militia and army, and demobilisation of a civic society. They were the wrong choices to take, and it took Iraqi society years to recover from them. To get Afghanistan right we need to learn those lessons. We need to ensure that we do not undermine Afghanistan’s society as it stands.

Rory Stewart: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on whether US expenditure of $125 billion a year and the presence of nearly 150,000 foreign troops are not likely to undermine local capacity and Afghan society in exactly the ways that he is warning against.

Stephen Gilbert: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point, which is why I was encouraged by what our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier today. For every member of our forces leaving, there
	will be two local people taking those responsibilities forward. If I may touch briefly on recommendation 35 in the report—

Barry Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Gilbert: No, I will not.

Barry Sheerman: This is a very important point.

Stephen Gilbert: No, I am afraid I will not.

Barry Sheerman: I am sorry, but—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman has said several times that he will not give way.

Stephen Gilbert: I note that the hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber for the debate—

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman was very disagreeable—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. It is up to the Member who is speaking whether he wishes to give way to another Member, and the hon. Gentleman has said that he is not going to give way because of the time pressures.

Stephen Gilbert: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the final minutes I want to look at some of the lessons that the report suggests we can learn for our actions and activities in Libya. The report says that we need a co-ordinated approach to post-conflict stabilisation, which is something that we have perhaps not succeeded in adopting in all the instances where our forces have been deployed in the past, particularly Iraq and Afghanistan. If we are truly to deliver a legacy in Libya that is worth the risks that our brave men and women are taking in that country, recommendation 35, which deals with the need for co-ordinated action, is crucial. We cannot have Departments squabbling over who is leading on post-conflict Libya or from which budgets post-conflict Libya will be helped. Departments need to work together and with their international colleagues. That is one of the key lessons that we can take from this debate.
	Overall, the report—along with our international commitment—makes it clear that we as a nation cannot choose the history we live in to meet our budgets; rather, our budgets must be capable of meeting the history in which we find ourselves. We are a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and I am concerned that our contribution to that organisation will fall over the course of this Parliament to below the international minimum standard of 1.9%. Never again must the forces that we deploy be short of the tools that they need to do their jobs.

Barry Sheerman: I just want to explain why I was trying to intervene. The hon. Gentleman made the sweeping statement that we failed in Iraq. I was in the House at the time and voted for the Iraq war, and I do not believe that what we did to remove Saddam Hussein was a failure. The hon. Gentleman said that Iraq was a failure; I do not believe it was right for him to say that this afternoon.

Stephen Gilbert: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has managed to get his point on the record. As he knows, I was not in the House at the time. My position is that the Iraq conflict lacked international legitimacy and post-conflict reconstruction, and was a distraction from our important work in Afghanistan, which was in the national interest and did have legitimacy from the United Nations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be generous to me in future, as I allowed him to put his point on the record.
	We as a country have an international obligation to spend 2% of GDP on our defence. Over this Parliament we will fall short of that. Never again must we allow our forces to cry out that they lack helicopters, body armour, boots or protective vests. Our role in this place is to be clear about the policy objectives, clear about the need to resource them properly and confident in our military’s capability to deliver those outcomes.

John Spellar: We fully recognise how the extraordinary events of the past few days have impacted on the length of this debate and possibly on the attention that it will receive outside the House. It is probably true that
	“The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here”
	today, but this debate is important, not least for those who have served, who have been injured and who have died in the conflict in Afghanistan.
	In the time available to me, I want to deal with three main issues. The first is the prospects for Afghanistan and, as I stressed in our debate on this subject in May, the role of the regional powers. The second significant issue is the impact of all these developments on the stability of Pakistan. Finally, I want to talk about the report—and more significantly, the Government’s response to it—and the provision of equipment for our troops. As I have said, we debated this subject less than a couple of months ago. We have to address the tragedy of Afghanistan under Taliban rule and insurgency, and ask what our best approach is to enabling Afghanistan and its people to come out of this nightmare.
	Interestingly, a number of Members of both Houses recently visited the exhibition at the British Museum on early Afghanistan, which presented a very different picture from the TV coverage showing a dusty wilderness and a population living in the middle ages. The exhibition showed early Afghanistan as an ancient centre of civilisation with a significant position at the crossroads of the ancient world and a rich cultural tradition. For an example, one has only to think of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, which were constructed in the sixth century and, sadly, destroyed by the vandals of the Taliban. In the Prime Minister’s statement today, he also drew attention to many of Afghanistan’s strengths, including abundant mineral wealth, fertile agricultural land and a position at the crossroads of Asia’s great trading highways.

Denis MacShane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, up until about 1970, a Marks & Spencer was open and functioning in Kabul? Should it be an objective of British foreign policy to get M&S back there?

John Spellar: Similarly, the symbol of the end of the cold war was the appearance of McDonald’s in many capitals in eastern Europe.
	We should also remember how much of Afghanistan’s ancient civilisation was destroyed by nihilist tribes, in a pattern not dissimilar to what is happening today. We need to focus on the process of political dialogue and reconciliation in Afghanistan, as well as on a political settlement in which enough Afghan citizens from all parts of the country have a stake. The central Government there also need enough power and legitimacy to protect the country from threats, from within and without. That first proposition depends on there being a new external settlement that commits Afghanistan’s neighbours to respecting its sovereign integrity, as well as a process by which the ex-combatants there can acquire civilian status and have an opportunity to gain sustainable employment and income.
	Afghanistan will then require reconciliation. This will include ensuring that tribal, ethnic and other groups are represented and recognised. Parliament and parliamentarians should also be recognised and encouraged. In that context, we were all interested in, if not intrigued by, the proposal for an exchange of Speakers. We were wondering whether the Speaker might seek to delegate that responsibility, a prospect that caused some alarm to your predecessor in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I shall turn first to Pakistan, however. I say to the Chairman and other members of the Select Committee that, if I have a concern about the report it is that the content does not fully reflect its title, “The UK’s foreign policy approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan”. The section on Pakistan takes up only about six of the 97 pages, and looks largely at the effect on the campaign in Afghanistan of action in and by Pakistan. Frankly, the more important strategic issue is the impact of Afghanistan on Pakistan.
	Pakistan is a country of 160 million people. It is the second-largest Muslim country in the world, and it has a significant military and nuclear capability. It is also, as the Foreign Secretary has rightly acknowledged on behalf of Britain, a country that has suffered considerable losses from fundamentalist terrorism, and it continues to do so. We need to think seriously about Pakistan’s concerns and prospects, and to take into account a factor that is sometimes overlooked—namely, its need to recover from the horrific flooding that it has experienced.
	That is why the announcement of continuing aid to Pakistan by the Department for International Development is encouraging, and welcomed by the Opposition, especially the scaling up of investment in effective, non-fundamentalist education to £446 million a year by 2015. Pakistan faces, in the words of a DFID publication, “an educational emergency”, with 17 million children not in school, half the adult population and two thirds of the women unable to read or write—and the population is escalating. We have to be clear in this context that there is a considerable onus on the Pakistan authorities to ensure that the money reaches its intended recipients. As DFID says, aid is
	“dependent on securing value for money and results and will be linked to the Government of Pakistan’s own progress on reform, at both the federal and provincial levels, including taking tangible steps to build a more dynamic economy, strengthen the tax base and tackle corruption.”
	That places a clear obligation on Pakistan to improve its administration, especially in tax collection, to foster a more open and pluralistic society and, last but by no
	means least, to engage in dialogue to reduce tension with India, which occupies so much attention and resources in both countries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) mentioned the Indian obligations, and there is an obligation on both sides of the divide if dialogue is to be used to reduce that tension.
	What of India and the other regional powers? They were mentioned by a number of hon. Members—the hon. Members for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and particularly the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). It is true that all the regional powers could seek to pursue their own separate interests, looking on Afghanistan as a zero-sum game. We should make no mistake; it certainly could be like that. Indeed, if the situation in Afghanistan unravels, it could end up being a negative-sum game for those countries. The creation of a black hole of political intrigue, anarchy and violence in Afghanistan could impact in very different but very significant ways on all its neighbours.
	China, as we know, has considerable Islamic problems in its western province, but also has considerable investment in Afghan resources. Russia faces the potential of instability on its southern flank and also has a significant drugs problem. Iran has a minority group in Afghanistan and also feels the impact of the drugs trade. Turkey has growing regional influence. India has a long and historic, but also a current and dynamic, interest in Afghanistan. Part of our strategy for disengagement will thus depend very heavily on the extent to which the regional powers can co-exist and work together for a progressive solution for Afghanistan.

Thomas Docherty: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the role of Tehran in destabilising both Afghanistan and the wider region? Does he share my assessment that we cannot allow Tehran to continue down this destructive path indefinitely?

John Spellar: That is certainly to be encouraged, but Tehran will have a degree of involvement. It has a Persian minority within Afghanistan, it is a significant power within the region and it suffers considerably from the impact of the drugs trade on its own population. It will thus have to be engaged in its own interest.

Paul Flynn: My right hon. Friend will recall that when we went into Afghanistan, one of the reasons for doing so that we heard from the Dispatch Box was that Afghanistan provided 90% of the heroin coming into Britain. Will he remind us what percentage of heroin comes to this country from Afghanistan after the sacrifice of 375 British lives?

John Spellar: Still far too much, but I think my hon. Friend would also recognise the role of the Taliban in that trade and the money they obtain from it to fund their activities. As I point out again in this context, it is in the interest of the wider world and in the particular interests of the regional powers to act along the lines I mention and the regional powers obviously need to be engaged in the process.
	Let me deal now with the Select Committee report. There has understandably been a debate about the decision to announce a deadline for British combat
	withdrawal by 2014 and about the manner in which it was taken. This features quite strongly in the report and was obviously the subject of the Prime Minister’s statement today, which was welcomed by the Leader of the Opposition.
	I have to say, however, that the Government’s response was, frankly, inadequate—almost embarrassing—and if I were a member of the Select Committee, I would have been rather insulted by such an inadequate response to the very significant questions that it posed. The Select Committee might well want to pursue these at a future date. It reads very much as a “seat of the pants”, “top of the head”, “don’t bore me with the details” response.
	Let us examine the Government’s response to paragraphs 156 and 157, which makes it clear that the 2014 decision was not made by the Cabinet or even the National Security Council. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham quoted from it earlier. The decision
	“was made by the Prime Minister following discussions with a number of senior Ministers”.
	It is not even clear whether those discussions took place collectively or individually. Obviously, in this context, sofa government is alive and well.
	Nowhere in their response do the Government answer the Select Committee’s questions about what advice they had received from the military before the decision, and we consider that a significant omission. Equally unclear—especially in the context of the many references today to our engagement with the United States—is the answer to the question asked in the Select Committee about what consultation the United Kingdom had had with the United States. I do not know whether there has been any subsequent communication from the Government to the Committee on the subject, but the reply given on May 2011 did not match the significant questions that the Committee had posed. That is no way to run a war, and it is certainly no way to treat a Select Committee.
	Further questions arise from today’s statement by the Prime Minister. First, it is clear that a dozen helicopters were ordered by the previous Secretary of State. The current Secretary of State, when he was the Opposition spokesman, raised the issue regularly—according to an estimate by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), about 161 times—before the general election. Now he has put the order on hold. Given that the Prime Minister has committed British forces to two more fighting seasons, will the Government activate this order immediately? I gave the Minister notice of that question. I hope that he has a reply, not only for me but for the House, and, more important, for the troops.
	Secondly, the Prime Minister announced a continuing military relationship with Afghanistan, and stressed that it would not involve a combat role for our troops. We have to ask—and the military too will seek an answer to this question—how force protection will be provided, and by whom it will be provided. We must also think again about the dangers of mission creep.
	Because I want to give the Minister time to respond, I will end my speech now. The role of the Opposition in these matters is to support the national interest and, in particular, to take a long-term view of the issues and support our armed forces. However, on behalf of the country and our troops, we must also hold the Minister and the Government to account for their performance, and we look forward to the Minister’s reply to the questions that he has been asked.

Alistair Burt: I thank the House for its attention. I agree with the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) that it is a pity that the debate fell where it did in the timetable, but, although there was huge interest in the Prime Minister’s statement earlier, I do not think that that detracts in any way from the importance of what we have been discussing or the manner in which it has been discussed.
	Before I deal with the substance of the debate, I want to respond to the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), the Chairman of the Select Committee, and the right hon. Member for Warley, the Opposition spokesman. My hon. Friend led the debate extremely well, referring to the Foreign Affairs Committee’s important report and guiding us through a number of the issues. I shall deal later with some of the points that he raised about transition, political reconciliation and the drawdown issues, but first I want to deal with his point about intelligence. I know that he raised it with the Prime Minister earlier today.
	My hon. Friend observed that, understandably, we rely on intelligence reports to guide actions and give ourselves a sense of whether, for example, al-Qaeda might still be in the area. He asked how this intelligence could be scrutinised, particularly given the intelligence queries in respect of Iraq, and he wondered whether there was further scope for parliamentary activity. I have to say that I doubt that. We undertake rigorous analysis through the Joint Intelligence Committee to assess the terrorist threat to the UK, drawing on analysis from across the agencies, the MOD and the joint terrorism analysis centre. Ministers receive that advice to inform their decision making. We have all learned the lessons from the experiences over Iraq, and we continue to carry out the most rigorous scrutiny of these issues. The assessment is that while the threat has diminished, it has not disappeared.
	Although I wish I could, I cannot see how the intelligence on which Ministers operate daily could be made available for the immediate analysis my hon. Friend has in mind. I understand his point, however. The onus is on the Government to handle the intelligence correctly because information is made available subsequently, and the process for confirming the information on which Ministers act at the time is rigorous. At present, however, I cannot see any means whereby Members might be more involved. I will address the substance of my hon. Friend’s remarks in the course of my speech.
	I will also deal with the points the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Warley, made about Pakistan and regional powers, but first let me deal with the specific issue about the Chinooks, which he was good enough to raise with me in advance, so that I can give him clarification and make clear what the Prime Minister said today. Nothing has changed since the announcement we made in the strategic defence and security review. We plan to buy 12 additional Chinook helicopters, as the Prime Minister confirmed today, and a further two to replace those lost on operations in Afghanistan in 2009. The MOD is working towards the main investment decision on the helicopters. In the meantime, Boeing is under contract to continue all critical path work to ensure that the delivery time scale for the aircraft is met.
	So that is a definite commitment, but no order has been placed, and we are exactly where we were before the Prime Minister spoke today.

John Spellar: Can the Minister therefore give us any idea, even within broad parameters, of when it is likely that that order will be confirmed, and helicopters will start to arrive for our troops?

Alistair Burt: In all fairness, I cannot. This is a matter for the Secretary of State for Defence. The investment decision is in the process of being made. Our troops, of course, have helicopters. The aircraft we are currently discussing will be deployed in Afghanistan in the very long term, if they are deployed at all bearing in mind the time scales of our commitment to Afghanistan. There is no issue about the availability of helicopters now, however. As the Prime Minister said, the situation is much improved from that in previous years. We believe that the kit that is available to troops is entirely appropriate; adding to it through the future Chinooks will be important, but the availability of kit now is absolutely right.
	I do not want to say too much about the question the right hon. Gentleman raised about decision making in respect of 2015. That would open up a debate on decision making by Government, in which I do not believe his predecessors would come out terribly well. We are therefore content to rely on the perfectly proper answer in the response to the report.
	As always, debates on Afghanistan and Pakistan attract contributions with no little passion, and occasionally a lot of soul searching, from Members with a wealth of experience and insight to offer on the UK’s most important foreign policy commitment. I am therefore indebted to all colleagues who have spoken in our brief, but important, debate. We have looked at origins, intentions and policy. We have queried success and failure. We have looked ahead with varying degrees of optimism or pessimism to where we might be going and why, and the contributions from all have been good, even though I have disagreed with some of the judgments made.
	In responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South and his Committee, I wish to reaffirm our strategy and relate developments on it to some of the issues highlighted by colleagues in the debate and in the report itself. I then wish to pursue one or two specific points that colleagues have made today. I apologise in advance for not being able to cover every question, but I will write to colleagues who asked specific questions that I am not able to deal with now.
	Our strategy for Afghanistan, as repeated clearly by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this week in Afghanistan and again this afternoon, is clear and straightforward: we are in Afghanistan, with others, to ensure our own national security by helping the Afghans to take control of theirs, so that Afghanistan cannot be used in the future as the base for al-Qaeda terrorist attacks, which have taken too many lives in the United Kingdom and around the world. That aim is pursued through three inter-linked strands, which incidentally but not coincidentally do make for the better Afghanistan that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) understandably seeks. Those strands are: political progress; development aid to help create
	and ensure the progress of a viable state; and, of course, security. This Government are totally focused, on behalf of all their citizens and especially those who are sacrificing so much in delivering on that aim.
	Having looked at the Committee’s report and having listened to today’s debate, I wish to offer responses on progress under the following headings, which I think cover most of the things that colleagues have raised: transition and security, including issues relating to draw-down; political settlement and reconciliation; development progress towards a viable state; and Pakistan, which is a fundamental element.
	On transition, the shared aim of the United Kingdom, the Afghan Government and our international colleagues is to ensure that the Afghan national security forces are in the security lead in all provinces by the end of 2014. We are making good progress towards that aim. The first tranche of areas to begin the transition process was announced by President Karzai in March, and implementation is due to begin on 20 July. It is testament to the excellent work that British forces are doing in Helmand that Lashkar Gah will be among that first tranche. Like all colleagues who have spoken today, I wish to pay tribute to all British military personnel who have served in Afghanistan. Their courage and dedication has allowed for the progress that has been made so far. The training and development of the Afghan national security forces is at the heart of the transition process. Since December 2009, those forces have grown by more than 100,000 personnel and will grow by an additional 70,000 in the next year. Quality is also rising, as is the Afghans’ pride in their armed forces.

Barry Sheerman: rose —

Alistair Burt: I wish to make some progress. A lot of colleagues were able to give up two and a half hours to this debate and I would rather concentrate on the issues they raised, rather than on the hon. Gentleman, who came in very late—I hope he will forgive me.
	Good progress is also being made on the expansion and improvement of the Afghan national police, and that is also a key part of ensuring security for the future and transition. The UK has funded the construction of 12 new police stations in Helmand province, and since its establishment in December 2009 more than 1,000 patrolmen have graduated from the Helmand police training centre. I have had the good fortune to see for myself the work being done in Lashkar Gah at the police centres and to spend time with Bill Caldwell talking about the training of the national security forces. Progress is being made and there is a growing confidence about this process, but, as with all things relating to Afghanistan, progress is never linear. This is not something that will go smoothly all in one direction; and there will be setbacks and we will take steps backwards before we move forward. However, genuine progress is being made, and the House is entitled to take note of it and feel some pride in it because of the work that has gone into creating that situation.
	On security and draw-down, the Government welcome President Obama’s recent announcement on the draw-down of US troops from Afghanistan. We agree that substantial progress has been made towards the international community’s shared objective of preventing international terrorists, including al-Qaeda, from again
	using Afghanistan as an operating base. This is not simply about whether al-Qaeda is operating there now. The issue is: can the area be made sufficiently secure to ensure that al-Qaeda does not come back in future? That progress has been hard won and the announcement is a sign of success.
	As was mentioned by a number of Members, including in interventions that I appreciated from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), that draw-down has coincided with the notification of draw-down made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He made a further comment today about reducing our force level by a further 500 to 9,000 by the end of 2012. The decision has been agreed by the National Security Council on the advice of our military commanders, which reflects the progress that has been made in building up the ANSF. For the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, let me simply say that the Prime Minister said this afternoon:
	“This marks the start of a process that will ensure that by the end of 2014 there will be nothing like the number of British troops who are there now, and they will not be serving in a combat role. This is the commitment I have made, and this is the commitment we will stick to.”
	This afternoon, there has been discussion about what the draw-down means and about whose incentive is greater. Our assessment is that the incentive for the Taliban to get involved in reconciliation is very clear, as the greatest imminent threat is faced by those who stay outside the process and continue to conduct operations against ISAF forces. The incentive is there for the Afghan security forces to continue the preparation work they are doing. That is the reason for draw-down dates and our sense is that steady progress is being made that vindicates the dates that have been given.

Julian Lewis: I understand the incentive while drones are still killing Taliban in the run-up to the end of 2014, but what incentive will the Taliban have to stick to any deal that is reached or to go through with a deal after 2014? Are we going to be firing drones from outside the country?

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend is taking far too little notice of the improvement and strength of the Afghan national security forces in their own right. It is they who will carry on the fight on behalf of their people against those who threaten their state. To assume that this is a practice that only we are engaged in and that only we can be engaged in is unfair to the growing success and strength of the ANSF. That is the incentive for the future.
	It is vital to recognise that the absence of combat troops does not mean a lack of interest from those who have created the conditions for what we hope will be a secure—

Thomas Docherty: Will the Minister give way?

Alistair Burt: No, I have only three minutes left.
	Let me turn to the political settlement. Despite the military gains that have been made, it is common cause in the House that we need not just a military answer but a political settlement and reconciliation. We strongly support the Afghan-led efforts that are being made to encourage the process of integration and reconciliation.
	We support the work that has been carried out this year through various international conferences and by the High Peace Council as well as the direct engagement with the Taliban from the Afghan community on the basis of the conditions set by President Karzai: renouncing violence, cutting links with terrorist groups and accepting the constitution.
	In answer to those who queried the issues to do with preconditions, let me say that our understanding is that the Afghan-led process is about those who are prepared to accept the conditions stated, not about meeting those conditions in the first place. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his statement this afternoon, we are looking towards a situation in which the conditions are met but early negotiations might take place in a situation that is not clear. It is important that the conditions laid down by President Karzai are ultimately accepted. We welcome the engagement of the United States and the recent comments made by the Secretary of State about US involvement.
	The third leg is the viable state. We should all pay tribute to the work done by DFID in particular, and I am pleased to welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development to this debate. From 2001 to 2011, DFID has spent £960 million in Afghanistan and over the next four years it will spend £712 million. We have seen improvements in education, health and the economy. May I also pay tribute to those outside Government, such as Karen Woo and Linda Norgrove, who gave their lives for the development work in which they were engaged, showing its importance?
	I do not have time, I am afraid, to deal with Pakistan. I accept the comments made by the right hon. Member for Warley and perhaps I may write to him about the importance of Pakistan in the future. Engagement with Pakistan is crucial and we have productive intelligence work. It is essential that those in Pakistan are engaged both with Afghanistan and with dealing with the issues in their own country, which has suffered so much.
	In conclusion, Afghanistan debates illustrate the depth of engagement of Members of the House in the issue. Our commitment is clear: notwithstanding the complexities for the country, its relationship with others in a region desperate for stability and the variable factors that will determine its future, our aim of a secure Afghanistan in the hands of its people, secure from its enemies and from those of the rest of us, can be realised.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2012, for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £1,279,625,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 921,
	(2) further resources, not exceeding £19,718,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £1,188,315,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.
	The Deputy Speaker then put the Questions on the outstanding Estimates (Standing Order No.55).

DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2012, for expenditure by the Department for Communities and Local Government—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £15,285,674,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 921,
	(2) further resources, not exceeding £2,344,000,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £17,386,772,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

HOME OFFICE

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2012, for expenditure by the Home Office—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £5,717,338,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 921,
	(2) further resources, not exceeding £277,435,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £5,720,232,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

ESTIMATES, 2011-12

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2012—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £221,086,166,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 911, HC 921, HC 934, HC 935, HC 1339 and HC 1340,
	(2) further resources, not exceeding £21,712,444,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £222,322,315,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)
	Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions;
	That the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Danny Alexander, Mark Hoban, David Gauke and Justine Greening bring in the Bill.

Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill

Presentation and First Reading
	Justine Greening accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the year ending with 31 March 2012; to authorise both the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund and the application of income for that year; and to appropriate the supply authorised for that year by this Act and by the Consolidated Fund Act 2010.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 214).

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Dawn Primarolo: With the agreement of the House, I shall group motions 6 to 12 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

International Development

That the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 12 May, be approved.
	That the draft Inter-American Development Bank (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 12 May, be approved.
	That the draft Inter-American Development Bank (Contribution to the Fund for Special Operations) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 12 May, be approved.

Immigration

That the draft Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 23 May, be approved.
	That the draft Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) (Amendment) Regulations 2011, which were laid before this House on 23 May, be approved.

Environmental Protection

That the draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2011, which were laid before this House on 13 June, be approved.

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2011, which were laid before this House on 13 June, be approved.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)
	Question agreed to.

COMMITTEE ON MEMBERS’ ALLOWANCES

Motion made,
	That Standing Order No. 152G (Committee on Members’ Allowances) shall be amended as follows—
	(1) in line 2, leave out ‘Allowances’ and insert ‘Expenses’; and
	(2) leave out lines 3 to 17 and insert ‘to consider such matters relating to Members’ expenses as may be referred to it by the House;’.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

Hon. Members: Object.

REVIEW OF PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS ACT 2009

Motion made,
	That, further to the instruction to the Committee on Members’ Allowances of 12 May, it be an instruction to the Committee on Members’ Expenses to report to the House on the review of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 by 31 December 2011.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION
	 — 
	King George Hospital, Ilford

Lee Scott: I thank my colleagues the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch and Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) and all the volunteers who have helped to get the exceptional number of 32,000 signatures to this petition on the accident and emergency and maternity services at King George hospital.
	The petition reads:
	The Petition of the residents of North East London and others.
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that the proposed closure of accident and emergency and maternity wards at King George Hospital Redbridge would not be in the best interests of the people living in these constituencies.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to stop the proposed closure of the A&E and maternity wards at King George Hospital.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	[P000934]

FOOTBALL CLUBS IN ADMINISTRATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

Alison Seabeck: No town or city wants to see its football team go into administration, and it certainly does not want it to be docked 10 points, which leaves it with an even bigger mountain to climb, but that is what has happened to Plymouth Argyle.
	The club’s problems do not end there, and I would like to draw on its experience to highlight the problems undoubtedly experienced by the 36 English clubs that have gone into administration since Charlton Athletic did so in 1984. I hope that the Minister will share these concerns, and go away, investigate and discuss them with those involved in running football. I do not want to see another club go through what Plymouth Argyle has gone through. I am sure that their best known supporter, Michael Foot, will be turning in his grave; indeed, in some ways I am pleased that he is not here to see what has happened and the misery that has been heaped on loyal staff and supporters, because he followed the club through good times and bad.
	There were good times, and I must thank Gordon Sparks—Sparksy—for reminding me of some of the highlights of a club which was formed in 1886, joined the Football League in 1920 and got to the FA Cup semi-finals in the 1983-84 season—the same year in which the team were league two champions. I also thank Lee Jameson on behalf of the supporters for the information that he gave me in preparation for this debate. Plymouth has an incredibly loyal “green army” of supporters—and there are at least two of us in the Chamber—but their patience has been sorely tested.
	Following a winding-up petition in November 2010, the staff faced Christmas without full pay packets. Learning from Exeter City’s experience, the supporters rallied round, and in December set up a trust designed to offer support to the then board and raise funds to support the staff and their families.

Tom Greatrex: My hon. Friend mentioned the establishment of a supporters trust, and I declare an interest, as I was involved in the establishment of the Fulham supporters trust some eight years ago. The important role of Supporters Direct in helping to support supporters such as those in Plymouth who are setting up a trust should not be underestimated. Does she agree that it is regrettable that the funding for Supporters Direct is under threat because of the problems that the premier league has with the former chief executive? I hope that the Minister can help to persuade those involved to resolve that problem as soon as possible.

Alison Seabeck: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and I hope that the Minister has heard his plea, because supporters trusts and Supporters Direct have been immensely helpful to a number of clubs.
	In Plymouth the staff have been asked to sign away or defer payment of their salary. In the main, we are talking about some very low-paid people who were presented with a form to sign after the club to which
	they feel great loyalty was threatened with closure. With little opportunity to obtain expert advice on whether signing was the right thing to do, they signed, and most have struggled since, signing further salary deferrals. Some have now had no option but to take redundancy. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) and I spent quite a lot of time with the staff looking into their problems; none the less, they are in a difficult position.
	The irony is that these are the very people who are keeping the ground in condition to start the next season. The players are protected to some extent by the Professional Footballers Association, and I had a brief word with Gordon Taylor about the position. He shared my concern that there was no protection for all the other staff. It was a struggle to see last season out, with relegation almost guaranteed, despite some amazing and spirited performances by a team that must have been feeling the pressure. Peter Ridsdale stepped in when most of the old board resigned and, in all fairness, worked to get to the bottom of the finances and pay key bills. At the time, he was welcomed. Help also came, as I have said, from the Plymouth Argyle Supporters and Training and Development Trust, which lent the club a not insubstantial amount. Then came the cloak and dagger stuff—the secret discussions between the administrator and various bidders. Plymouth’s local paper, The  Herald, struggled to get to the bottom of the question of who they were.
	We have all had concerns about what checks have been carried out to ensure that they are fit and proper people to run and sustain a football club. Where are the assurances of the ability of these bidders to meet the financial demands of running a club? Rumours have circulated about what various bidders might have wanted as part of the deal, and concerns have been expressed that they might asset-strip, including developing the current practice ground. Although no one has said that this is true, it does not help to build confidence in those most closely linked to the club, especially the supporters.
	What checks are carried out by the Football League on such matters? Very few, I suspect, yet this is a sport of national importance. Where is the transparency that the administrator promised in a BBC interview? Nine days later he was quoted as saying that he did not have to know who was financing the bid. Given the amount of money that circulates at the top of football among clubs which, in some cases, use the lower division clubs as nurseries for up-and-coming stars of the future, I find it astonishing that some contribution could not come from them and/or from the Football League clubs to support the administration and ground staff when such circumstances arise, as a sort of insurance policy.
	Others are affected too, especially small businesses linked to football clubs. The Federation of Small Businesses has pointed out that most football clubs operate as small or medium-sized enterprise, employing fewer than 250 people and, like other small businesses, often find it difficult to access credit from the major banks. As a result they often turn to smaller creditors, and similarly contract through many small companies. The impact of such a business going into administration can, therefore, have a knock-on effect on several other local businesses.
	I ask the football authorities to look again at the negative impact of the points docking system. Is it really achieving their original aim? Is it punishing the right people? Will the Minister explain why the rules for football clubs placed in administration are different from those for other companies? I believe that Lord Sugar has in the past expressed concern about this.

Damian Collins: I anticipate that the hon. Lady might be about to mention the football creditors rule. Earlier she spoke about the impact on small businesses. Does she agree that the football creditors rule has no place in football today, and that it acts as a disincentive for clubs to deal responsibly with each other and punishes local businesses, while protecting the interests of other football clubs and former players who might be hundreds of miles away?

Alison Seabeck: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He has made it in far more detail than I intended to do. I shall reinforce it later, and I hope that the Minister will listen.
	Lord Sugar made plain his view that—I paraphrase—the money thrown at clubs by television companies should be put into a trust, and half of it distributed to the clubs to spend, perhaps on players, but also to do other things. Protecting the staff in times of difficulty would be a worthwhile cause.
	There are many questions specific to Plymouth which still need to be answered, despite the fact that we understand that the takeover has gone through today and the papers have been signed. Does the takeover proposal provide sufficient cash for the creditors to be paid in full, as regulation demands? Will the Football League be satisfied enough to hand over the competition share, or will deferred debts, including the remaining unpaid salaries, not be paid or simply stack up, rather like an individual in debt who puts the bills behind the clock in the hope that they will go away? Is the Football League happy that neither party to the deal is likely to be subject to any other outside investigations, which could throw their role at Argyle into confusion?
	Although the various parties have signed on the dotted line today, it is still not clear whether this is the end of the story. Will they be able to get on and prepare the club for next season—and, we hope, promotion at the end of it? It will not be easy. Media stories are still circulating about concerns among former bidders that do not appear to be going away. We may never know who the mystery shareholders and directors from the Gibraltar-based company are. The lack of transparency is hugely concerning.
	With clubs in the lower leagues spending £4 for every £3 that they generate in revenue, reduced Football League distributions in 2012-13 because of lower broadcasting rights values, and a range of other pressures, clubs elsewhere in the league could face the type of misery that Plymouth is going through, with all sorts of people waiting to pick up the pieces. Some of them care about football and some do not. Some should be allowed to run a football club and some should not be allowed to run a sweet shop. I urge the Minister to take a close look at what is happening in Plymouth and take action to encourage the sport to take better care of its assets—the people who work for and support it.

Oliver Colvile: I begin by thanking you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate, and by congratulatingthe hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) on securing it. I hope that she and I have illustrated that Plymouth MPs can work together across the political divide when Drake’s drum starts to beat. It is apt that we should be having this debate today, because Plymouth Argyle, which is based at Home Park in my constituency, and has been in administration since March because it could not pay its tax bill, has at long last concluded its negotiations and is in the process of being bought—in the near future, I hope.
	I will not pretend for one moment to be the greatest of football fans, but I am a member of the Plymouth Argyle fans trust. I cannot explain the off-side rule with any sense of certainty, but I do know how important it is for a city with a population of 225,000 to have a football club that plays in the Football League. Plymouthians are very proud of Argyle, but they are less enthusiastic about its directors, who have caused so much angst and about whom they have been forced to read so regularly in the Plymouth Evening Herald.
	The green army, as Argyle’s supporters are known, will be relieved to learn that they might be watching professional football during the coming season. Although crowd sizes fluctuate, there is a real sense of community support for the club, the players and the back-room staff. When it was announced in April that the back-room staff were not being paid, the supporters formed the Green Taverners to raise funds to help those loyal employees. The city council acted with great sensitivity and speed and agreed to delay those employees having to pay their council tax until they had been paid their salaries. I have nothing but praise for Councillor Vivien Pengelly, the leader of the council, who acted with such speed.
	Plymouth Argyle’s employees should never have been put in that situation. The directors at the time behaved irresponsibly. They thought that they could use the club to make money for themselves through a property deal. Property development is something that I know quite a large amount about, because before I entered this place I ran a communications company that helped developers regenerate land and managed planning for real weekends. Indeed, I retain an interest in the company, so I suppose I should declare an interest.
	Betting on England winning the world cup bid and Plymouth being one of the venues for some of the matches, the Argyle directors came up with a proposal to develop the stadium and use green undeveloped park land owned by the city council—before discussing it with officers or local politicians. I fully support the leader of the city council, who made it abundantly quite clear so some time that this would not be possible. I very much hope that the other political party on the city council supports Councillor Pengelly’s lead.
	Perhaps someone could explain to me why normally sensible business men leave their business brains at the turnstiles when they get involved in football clubs. They seem to think that they can be clever and play property deals with clubs. At Plymouth Argyle the ground was owned not by the club but by a third party.
	Indeed, I understand that under Football League rules the directors were allowed to assign their interests in central distribution rights, including proceeds from television coverage, to a third party, Mastpoint. Therefore, when the club went into administration and the back-room staff were not being paid, the Football League froze any money from central distribution rights and would not release it, because they were concerned that it could face a claim.
	I ask a very simple question: is that fair? Is it morally right that small and medium-sized enterprises and clubs’ backroom staff should have to wait to be paid—and, potentially, have to take less than they are owed, despite supplying goods and services in good faith—when some sharp-suited developer is allowed to keep the proceeds of those central distribution rights? I do not think so. In recent times the bankers have been criticised for being paid their bonuses when others have had to go without, so why are owners of football clubs allowed to play loose and free with moneys that should be used to settle debts? There is a moral imperative here.
	I understand that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee has been holding an inquiry into football governance, and I shall write to the Committee’s Chairman tomorrow, because I am very concerned that the central distribution rights, which include the proceeds from television coverage, should be made available to the club rather than going to third parties, so that organisations and people who are owed money can be paid. That needs to be investigated fully. I shall also write to suggest that clubs be required to have some insurance, so that if a club gets into difficulties, back-room staff and creditors are always paid.
	This has been a difficult time for Plymouth Argyle football club, but I hope that the new owners will have learned a significant amount from what has happened, and will not try property development before running a successful football club.

John Penrose: I echo Members’ congratulations to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) on securing this very important debate. She has made very clear her passion for the local football team, as indeed has my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile). He also showed that he is heavily involved, and whether or not he is an avid football fan he is clearly a powerful advocate for the club.
	As both local MPs said, everyone believes that a deal on Plymouth Argyle’s future has been completed today. The BBC Sport website states, however, that the agreement is conditional on the Football League’s ratification. The hon. Lady said that she has some concerns about all the criteria that the Football League may consider during ratification, so the process is not technically or entirely complete, and it is theoretically possible that the league will take a different view, but we will have to wait and see. It is very much up to the football authorities to make that decision one way or another.
	I must apologise, because Members will have doubtless noticed that I am not the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, who is in South Africa doing something, I am sure, terribly glamorous and wonderful, but he has asked me to stand in for him, and I will endeavour to
	respond appropriately. I know that he will be following this debate very closely and will take a close interest in the reports on it.
	Both Plymouth Members mentioned the fact that the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee is completing an inquiry into the governance and regulation of professional football clubs. Its inquiry, which the Government have welcomed and given evidence to, is considering a range of issues that affect the way our national game is run, and the focus of the inquiry is on strengthening the financial health of the game.
	We all look forward to receiving the Committee’s report—the Government certainly do—and its recommendations in due course, after which the Minister for Sport and the Olympics will set out the Government’s official response. He has mentioned it several times, and he is very keen to do so just as soon as the report is in.
	May I echo the praise that both local MPs have showered on the fans, players and staff of Plymouth Argyle for their continuing efforts in keeping the club going? It is a perfect example of what the Prime Minister calls the power of the big society, whereby local communities come together to tackle common causes and unite behind a theme. Plymouth Argyle can be added to a long list of football clubs—Leeds United, Portsmouth and Crystal Palace to name just a few—that in recent years have fallen into serious financial trouble.
	There is a worrying statistic that since 1992 more than 40 of the Football League’s 72 clubs have been insolvent at one stage or another. I should confess at this point that, although I of course support my local club in Weston-super-Mare, historically I have supported Ipswich Town as a “tractor boys” fan, and it had a little financial difficulty a few years ago, so I guess that it counts as one of the clubs in that statistic.
	It is of course important to differentiate, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View did, the elite clubs in the premier league that command the most money and can therefore pay their players the greater salaries from clubs such as Plymouth in the lower divisions that operate on a far tighter shoestring. The latter rely on local businesses, sponsors, hospitality and so forth for their revenues to a much greater extent than premier league clubs.
	If football today is as popular with supporters, advertisers and broadcasters as it seems, there are legitimate questions about why so many of our clubs face the prospect of having to sell their grounds, and why they cannot afford to pay players and staff or repay debts owed to local businesses. Those are the questions that the football authorities, which are entrusted to administer the game and our clubs, must continue to address seriously, as both MPs from Plymouth have pointed out.
	When the Football League chairman, Greg Clarke, gave evidence to the Select Committee, he admitted as much in saying that debt is the
	“single biggest problem for football”.
	He believes that if football clubs ensure that debt is genuinely sustainable, issues such as transparency of ownership, which has been mentioned, supporter buy-in and co-operative ownership will fall more easily into place.

Damian Collins: I was at the Select Committee when Mr Clarke gave evidence. He also stated that he could not find a moral case for keeping the football creditors rule. Nevertheless, it remains the position of the Football League that it should stay. Does the Minister, like me, find that regrettable?

John Penrose: If the football authorities find it unacceptable and regrettable, the Government probably do as well. This is something for football governance to take on first. The Government will seek not to intervene if football puts its own house in order. Mr Clarke has made his position very clear, and that should be a very powerful voice.
	The football authorities deserve credit for the rules they have introduced in recent years in the areas of financial regulation and club ownership. There are now an early warning system with HMRC in relation to tax returns, transfer embargoes that help curb club spending, new salary control measures in the lowest two leagues, a new means and abilities test that requires proof of funds from prospective owners, and a strengthened owners and directors test. It is welcome that in May, all 72 Football League clubs voted in principle to adopt UEFA’s new financial fair play rules from 2013, which will require clubs to spend only what they bring in. The Government obviously support those moves. Of course, situations such as that in Plymouth demonstrate how much more may need to be done. They also demonstrate that prevention is better than cure. It is far better to avoid going into a company voluntary agreement or insolvency if possible.
	We believe it is for the football authorities to continue to challenge themselves to see whether they should tighten their rules further to ensure that clubs do not fall into administration in the first place, in precisely the way I have just mentioned. Equally, the clubs have to take greater responsibility. Supporters should not have to bail out the club because of bad financial management by owners and directors, as both local MPs said.
	The stark reality is that for any company or organisation, not least a football club, emerging successfully from administration is likely to be painful and difficult. The focus must be on doing everything possible to avoid clubs getting into such problems in the first place. The Government’s hope and expectation is that as part of the wider process of the Select Committee inquiry’s recommendations, the football authorities will take steps to deal with such challenges themselves. If they do not, all avenues of course remain open to the Government, and we are prepared to look closely at how best to make those changes.

Alison Seabeck: Can the Minister give a reassurance that the Government will not just sit on this matter? I have heard him say that the Government will look at it. This is very important and we do not want another club to go down this route. I urge the Minister for Sport and the Olympics to have further meetings with those involved.

John Penrose: I can reassure the hon. Lady that my colleague the Minister for Sport and the Olympics is particularly exercised about the matter. He is on record as saying, in the Chamber and elsewhere, that he feels that football governance in general is in need of a serious overhaul. I know that he is prepared to be quite
	activist if he needs to be. Clearly it would be far better for all concerned if football could get its act together and put its own house in order first. That would be better for fans, and for everybody involved in both playing for and running football clubs, than to have a politician intervene. He remains willing to intervene, and will do so if necessary, but it would be a last resort.
	I repeat my congratulations to both local MPs on the interest and clear care and passion that they bring to
	their job on this issue. Everybody will echo their concerns and their hope that the announcement today marks the beginning of a successful new chapter in Plymouth Argyle’s history.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.